An Introduction to

Multivariate Statistical Analysis

Third Edition

T. W. ANDERSON
Stanford University
Department of Statl'ltLc",
Stanford, CA

~WlLEY­
~INTERSCIENCE
A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION
Copyright © 200J by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wih:y & Sons, lnc. Hohuken, Nl:W Jersey

PlIhlislu:d sinll.II;lI1collsly in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or hy any me'IllS, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning 0,' otherwise,
except as pClmit(ed under Section 107 or lOS or the 1Y7c> Uni!l:d States Copyright Act, without
either the prior writ'en permission of the Publisher, or al thorization through payment of the
appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA (lIn], 'J7H-750-H400, fax 97R-750-4470, or on the weh 'It www.copyright,com,
Requests tf) the ,>ublisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (20n 748-6011, fax (20n
748-6008, e-mdil: [email protected].

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best
efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with resped to
the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any
implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be
created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and
strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with
a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor au'hor shall be liable for any
loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special,
incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For gl:nl:ral information on our othl:r products and sl:rvices pll:asl: contad our Customl:r
Care Department within the U.S. at 877-762-2974, outside the U.S, at 317-572-3993 or
fax 317-572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears
in print, however, may not he availllhie in electronic format.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Anderson, 1'. W. (Theodore Wilbur), IYI1:!-

An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis / Theodore W. Anderson.-- 3rd ed.
p. cm.-- (Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics)
Includes hihliographical rekrcncc~ and indcx.
ISBN 0-471-36091-0 (cloth: acid-free paper)
1. Multivariate analysis. 1. Title. II. Series.
QA278.A516 2003
519.5'35--dc21 2002034317

Printed in the United States of America

lOYH7654321
 To
DOROTHY
 Contents

Preface to the Third Edition xv

Preface to the Second Edition xvii

Preface to the First Edition xix

1 Introduction 1

1.1. Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 1

1.2. The Multivariate Normal Distribution, 3

2 The Multivariate Normal Distribution 6

2.1. Introduction, 6
2.2. Notions of Multivariate Distributions, 7
2.3. The Multivariate Normal Distribution, 13
2.4. The Distribution of Linear Combinations of Normally
Distributed Variates; Independence of Variates;
Marginal Distributions, 23
2.5. Conditional Distributions and Multiple Correlation
Coefficient, 33
2.6. The Characteristic Function; Moments, 41
2.7. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 47
Problems, 56

3 Estimation of the Mean Vector and the Covariance Matrix 66

3.1. Introduction, 66
vii
Vlli CONTENTS

3.2. Tile Maximum LikelihoOll Estimators uf the Mean Vet:lor

and the Covariance Matrix, 67
3.3. The Distribution of the Sample Mean Vector; Inference
Concerning the Mean When the Covariance Matrix Is
Known, 74
3.4. Theoretical Properties of Estimators of the Mean
Vector, 83
3.5. Improved Estimation of the Mean, 91
3.6. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 101
Problems, 108

4 The Distributions and Uses of Sample Correlation Coefficients 115

4.1. rntroduction,115
4.2. Currelation CoclTiciellt or a 13ivariate Sample, 116
4.3. Partial Correlation CoetTicients; Conditional
Di!'trihutions, 136
4.4. The MUltiple Correlation Codficient, 144
4.5. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, ] 58
Problems, I ()3

5 The Generalized T 2-Statistic 170

5. I. rntrod uction,
170
5.2. Derivation of the Generalized T 2-Statistic and Its
Distribution, 171
5.3. Uses of the T"-Statistic, 177
5.4. The Distribution of T2 under Alternative Hypotheses;
The Power Function, 185
5.5. The Two-Sample Problem with Unequal Covariance
Matrices, 187
5.6. Some Optimal Properties or the T 1-Test, 190
5.7. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 199
Problems, 20 I

6 Classification of Observations 207

6.1. The Problem of Classification, 207

6.2. Standards of Good Classification, 208
(>.3. Pro(;eOureJ.; or C1assiricatiun into One or Two Populations
with Known Probability Distributions, 2]]
CONTENTS IX

6.4. Classification into One of Two Known Multivariate Normal

Populations, 215
6.5. Classification into One of Two Multivariate Normal
Populations When the Parameters Are Estimated, 219
6.6. Probabilities of Misc1assification, 227
6.7. Classification into One of Several Populations, 233
6.8. Classification into One of Several Multivariate Normal
Populations, 237
6.9. An Example of Classification into One of Several
Multivariate Normal Populations, 240
6.10. Classification into One of Two Known Multivariate Normal
Populations with Unequal Covariance Matrices, 242
Problems, 248

7 The Distribution of the Sample Covarirnce Matrix and the

Sample Generalized Variance 251

7.1. Introduction, 251

7.2. The Wishart Distribution, 252
7.3. Some Properties of the Wishart Distribution, 258
7.4. Cochran's Theorem, 262
7.5. The Generalized Variance, 264
7.6. Distribution of the Set of Correlation Coefficients When
the Population Covariance Matrix Is Diagonal, 270
7.7. The Inverted Wishart Distribution and Bayes Estimation of
the Covariance Matrix, 272
7.8. Improved Estimation of the Covariance Matrix, 276
7.9. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 282
PrOblems, 285

8 Testing the General Linear Hypothesis; Multivariate Analysis

of Variance 291

8.1. Introduction, 291

8.2. Estimators of Parameters in Multivariate Linear
Regl'ession, 292
8.3. Likelihood Ratio Criteria for Testing Linear Hypotheses
about Regression Coefficients, 298
g.4. The Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio Criterion When
the Hypothesis Is True, 304
x CONTENTS

~.5. An Asymptotic Expansion of the Distribution of the

Likelihood Ratio Criterion, 316
8.6. Other Criteria for Testing the Linear Hypothesis, 326
8.7. Tests of Hypotheses about Matrices of Regression
Coefficients and Confidence Regions, 337
8.8. Testing Equality of Means of Several Normal Distributions
with Common Covariance Matrix, 342
8.9. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, 346
8.10. Some Optimal Properties of Tests, 353
8.11. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 370
Problems, 3""4

9 Testing Independence of Sets of Variates 381

9.1. I ntroductiom, 381

9.2. The Likelihood Ratio Criterion for Testing Independence
<,.)f Sets of Variates, 381
9.3. The Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio Criterion When
the Null Hypothesis Is True, 386
9.·t An Asymptotic Expansion of the Distribution of the
Likelihood Ratio Criterion, 390
9.5. Other Criteria, 391
9.6. Step-Down Procedures, 393
9.7. An Example, 396
9.S. The Case of Two Sets of Variates, 397
9.9. Admi~sibility of the Likelihood Ratio Test, 401
9.10. Monotonicity of Power Functions of Tests of
Independence of Set~, 402
9.11. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 404
Problems, 408

10 Testing Hypotheses of Equality of Covariance Matrices and

Equality of Mean Vectors and Covariance Matrices 411

10.1. Introduction, 411

10.2. Criteria for Testing Equality of Several Covariance
Matrices, 412
10.3. Criteria for Testing That Several Normal Distributions
Are Identical, 415
10.4. Distributions of the Criteria, 417
CONTENTS xi

10.5. Asymptotic EXpansions of the Distributions of the

Criteria, 424
10.6. The Case of Two Populations, 427
10.7. Testing the Hypothesis That a Covariance Matrix
Is Proportional to a Given Matrrix; The Sphericity
Test, 431
10.8. . Testing the Hypothesis That a Covariance Matrix Is
Equal to a Given Matrix, 438
10.9. Testing the Hypothesis That a Mean Vector and a
Covariance Matrix Are Equal to a Given Vector ann
Matrix, 444
10.10. Admissibility of Tests, 446
10.11. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 449
Problems, 454

11 Principal Components 459

11.1. Introduction, 459

11.2. Definition of Principal Components in the
Populat10n, 460
11.3. Maximum Likelihood Estimators of the Principal
Components and Their Variances, 467
11.4. Computation of the Maximum Likelihood Estimates of
the Principal Components, 469
11.5. An Example, 471
11.6. Statistical Inference, 473
11.7. Testing Hypotheses about the Characteristic Roots of a
Covariance Matrix, 478
11.8. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 482
Problems, 483

12 Canonical Correlations and Canonical Variables 487

12.1. Introduction, 487

12.2. Canonical Correlations and Variates in the
Population, 488
12.3. Estimation of Canonical Correlations and Variates, 498
12.4. Statistical Inference, 503
12.5. An Example, 505
12.6. Linearly Related Expected Values, 508
Xli CONTENTS

12.7. Reduced Rank Regression, 514

12.8. Simultaneous Equations Models, 515
Problems, 526

13 The Distributions of Characteristic Roots and Vectors 528

13.1. Introduction, 528

13.2. The Case of Two Wishart Matrices, 529
13.3. The Case of One Nonsingular Wishart Matrix, 538
13.4. Canonical Correlations, 543
13.5. Asymptotic Distributions in the Case of One Wishart
Matrix, 545
13.6. Asymptotic Distributions in the Case of Two Wishart
Matrices, 549
13.7. Asymptotic Distribution in a Regression Model, 555
13.S. Elliptically Contoured Distributions, 563
Problems, 567

14 Factor Analysis 569

14.1. Introduction, 569

14.2. The Model, 570
14.3. Maximum Likelihood Estimators for Random
Oithogonal Factors, 576
14.4. Estimation for Fixed Factors, 586
14.5. Factor Interpretation and Transformation, 587
14.6. Estimation for Identification by Specified Zeros, 590
14.7. Estimation of Factor Scores, 591
Problems, 593

15 Patterns of Dependence; Graphical Models 595

15.1. Introduction, 595

15.2. Undirected Graphs, 596
15.3. Directed Graphs, 604
15.4. Chain Graphs, 610
15.5. Statistical Inference, 613

Appendix A Matrix Theory 624

A.I. Definition of a Matrix and Operations on Matrices, 624

A.2. Characteristic Roots and Vectors, 631
CONTENTS Xiii

A.3. Partitioned Vectors and Matrices, 635

A.4. Some Miscellaneous Results, 639
A.5. Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization and the Soll1tion of
Linear Equations, 647

Appendix B Tables 651

B.1. Wilks' Likelihood Criterion: Factors C(p, m, M) to

Adjust to X;.m' where M = n - p + 1, 651
B.2. Tables of Significance Points for the Lawley-Hotelling
Trace Test, 657
B.3. Tables of Significance Points for the
.Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai Trace Test, 673
B.4. Tables of Significance Points for the Roy Maximum Root
Test, 677
B.5. Significance Points for the Modified Likelihood Ratio
Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices Based on Equal
Sample Sizes, 681
B.6. Correction Factors for Significance Points for the
Sphericity Test, 683
B.7. Significance Points for the Modified Likelihood Ratio
Test "I = "I o, 685

References 687

Index 713
 Preface to the Third Edition

For some forty years the first and second editions of this book have been
used by students to acquire a basic knowledge of the theory and methods of
multivariate statistical analysis. The book has also served a wider community
of stati~ticians in furthering their understanding and proficiency in this field.
Since the second edition was published, multivariate analysis has been
developed and extended in many directions. Rather than attempting to cover,
or even survey, the enlarged scope, I have elected to elucidate several aspects
that are particularly interesting and useful for methodology and comprehen-
sion.
Earlier editions included some methods that could be carried out on an
adding machine! In the twenty-first century, however, computational tech-
niques have become so highly developed and improvements come so rapidly
that it is impossible to include all of the relevant methods in a volume on the
general mathematical theory. Some aspects of statistics exploit computational
power such as the resampling technologies; these are not covered here.
The definition of multivariate statistics implies the treatment of variables
that are interrelated. Several chapters are devoted to measures of correlation
and tests of independence. A new chapter, "Patterns of Dependence; Graph-
ical Models" has been added. A so-called graphical model is a set of vertices
Or nodes identifying observed variables together with a new set of edges
suggesting dependences between variables. The algebra of such graphs is an
outgrowth and development of path analysis and the study of causal chains.
A graph may represent a sequence in time or logic and may suggest causation
of one set of variables by another set.
Another new topic systematically presented in the third edition is that of
elliptically contoured distributions. The multivariate normal distribution,
which is characterized by the mean vector and covariance matrix, has a
limitation that the fourth-order moments of the variables are determined by
the first- and second-order moments. The class .of elliptically contoured
xv
xvi PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

distribution relaxes this restriction. A density in this class has contours of

equal density which are ellipsoids as does a normal density, but the set of
fourth-order moments has one further degree of freedom. This topic is
expounded by the addition of sections to appropriate chapters.
Reduced rank regression developed in Chapters 12 and 13 provides a
method of reducing the number of regression coefficients to be estimated in
the regression of one set of variables to another. This approach includes the
limited-information maximum-likelihood estimator of an equation in a simul-
taneous equations model.
The preparation of the third edition has been benefited by advice and
comments of readers of the first and second editions as well as by reviewers
of the current revision. In addition to readers of the earlier editions listed in
those prefaces I want to thank Michael Perlman and Kathy Richards for their
assistance in getting this manuscript ready.

T. W. ANDERSON

Stanford, California
February 2003
 Preface to the Second Edition

Twenty-six years have plssed since the first edition of this book was pub-
lished. During that tim~ great advances have been made in multivariate
statistical analysis-particularly in the areas treated in that volume. This new
edition purports to bring the original edition up to date by substantial
revision, rewriting, and additions. The basic approach has been maintained,
llamely, a mathematically rigorous development of statistical methods for
observations consisting of several measurements or characteristics of each
sUbject and a study of their properties. The general outline of topics has been
retained.
The method of maximum likelihood has been augmented by other consid-
erations. In point estimation of the mf"an vectOr and covariance matrix
alternatives to the maximum likelihood estimators that are better with
respect to certain loss functions, such as Stein and Bayes estimators, have
been introduced. In testing hypotheses likelihood ratio tests have been
supplemented by other invariant procedures. New results on distributions
and asymptotic distributions are given; some significant points are tabulated.
Properties of these procedures, such as power functions, admissibility, unbi-
asedness, and monotonicity of power functions, are studied. Simultaneous
confidence intervals for means and covariances are developed. A chapter on
factor analysis replaces the chapter sketching miscellaneous results in the
first edition. Some new topics, including simultaneous equations models and
linear functional relationships, are introduced. Additional problems present
further results.
It is impossible to cover all relevant material in this book~ what seems
most important has been included. FOr a comprehensive listing of papers
until 1966 and books until 1970 the reader is referred to A Bibliography of
Multivariate Statistical Analysis by Anderson, Das Gupta, and Styan (1972).
Further references can be found in Multivariate Analysis: A Selected and

xvii
xvIH PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Abstracted Bibliography, 1957-1972 by Subrahmaniam and Subrahmaniam

(973).
I am in debt to many students, colleagues, and friends for their suggestions
and assistance; they include Yasuo Amemiya, James Berger, Byoung-Seon
Choi. Arthur Cohen, Margery Cruise, Somesh Das Gupta, Kai-Tai Fang,
Gene Golub. Aaron Han, Takeshi Hayakawa, Jogi Henna, Huang Hsu, Fred
Huffer, Mituaki Huzii, Jack Kiefer, Mark Knowles, Sue Leurgans, Alex
McMillan, Masashi No, Ingram Olkin, Kartik Patel, Michael Perlman, Allen
Sampson. Ashis Sen Gupta, Andrew Siegel, Charles Stein, Patrick Strout,
Akimichi Takemura, Joe Verducci, MarIos Viana, and Y. Yajima. I was
helped in preparing the manuscript by Dorothy Anderson, Alice Lundin,
Amy Schwartz, and Pat Struse. Special thanks go to Johanne Thiffault and
George P. H, Styan for their precise attention. Support was contributed by
the Army Research Office, the National Science Foundation, the Office of
Naval Research, and IBM Systems Research Institute.
Seven tables of significance points are given in Appendix B to facilitate
carrying out test procedures. Tables 1, 5, and 7 are Tables 47, 50, and 53,
respectively, of Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, Vol. 2, by E. S. Pearson
and H. 0, Hartley; permission of the Biometrika Trustees is hereby acknowl-
edged. Table 2 is made up from three tables prepared by A. W. Davis and
published in Biometrika (1970a), Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathe-
matics (1970b) and Communications in Statistics, B. Simulation and Computa-
tion (1980). Tables 3 and 4 are Tables 6.3 and 6.4, respectively, of Concise
Stalistical Tables, edited by Ziro Yamauti (1977) and published by the
Japanese Stamlards Alisociation; this book is a concise version of Statistical
Tables and Formulas with Computer Applications, JSA-1972. Table 6 is Table 3
of The Distribution of the Sphericity Test Criterion, ARL 72-0154, by B. N.
Nagarscnkcr and K. C. S. Pillai, Aerospacc Research Laboratorics (1972).
The author is indebted to the authors and publishers listed above for
permission to reproduce these tables.

T. W. ANDERSON

SIanford. California
June 1984
 Preface to the First Edition

This book has been designed primarily as a text for a two-semester course in
multivariate statistics. It is hoped that the book will also serve as an
introduction to many topics in this area to statisticians who are not students
and will be used as a reference by other statisticians.
For several years the book in the form of dittoed notes has been used in a
two-semester sequence of graduate courses at Columbia University; the first
six chapters constituted the text for the first semester, emphasizing correla-
tion theory. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the usual theory of
univariate statistics, particularly methods based on the univariate normal
distribution. A knowledge of matrix algebra is also a prerequisite; however,
an appendix on this topic has been included.
It is hoped that the more basic and important topics are treated here,
though to some extent the coverage is a matter of taste. Some 0f the mOre
recent and advanced developments are only briefly touched on in the late
chapter.
The method of maximum likelihood is used to a large extent. This leads to
reasonable procedures; in some cases it can be proved that they are optimal.
In many situations, however, the theory of desirable or optimum procedures
is lacking.
Over the years this manuscript has been developed, a number of students
and colleagues have been of considerable assistance. Allan Birnbaum, Harold
Hotelling, Jacob Horowitz, Howard Levene, Ingram OIkin, Gobind Seth,
Charles Stein, and Henry Teicher are to be mentioned particularly. Acknowl-
edgements are also due to other members of the Graduate Mathematical

xix
xx PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

Statistics Society at Columbia University for aid in the preparation of the

manuscript in dittoed form. The preparation of this manuscript was sup-
ported in part by the Office of Naval Research.

T. W. ANDERSON

Center for Advanced Study

in the Behavioral Sciences
Stanford, California
December 1957
CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1. MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Multivariate statistical analysis is concerned with data that consist of sets of

measurements on a number of individuals or objects. The sample data may
be heights an~ weights of some individuals drawn randomly from a popula-
tion of school children in a given city, or the statistical treatment may be
made on a collection of measurements, such as lengths and widths of petals
and lengths and widths of sepals of iris plants taken from two species, or one
may study the scores on batteries of mental tests administered to a number of
students.
The measurements made on a single individual can be assembled into a
column vector. We think of the entire vector as an observation from a
multivariate population or distribution. When the individual is drawn ran-
domly, we consider the vector as a random vector with a distribution or
probability law describing that population. The set of observations on all
individuals in a sample constitutes a sample of vectors, and the vectors set
side by side make up the matrix of observations. t The data to be analyzed
then are thought of as displayed in a matrix or in several matrices.
We shall see that it is helpful in visualizing the data and understanding the
methods to think of each observation vector as constituting a point in a
Euclidean space, each coordinate corresponding to a measurement or vari-
able. Indeed, an early step in the statistical analysis is plotting the data; since

tWhen data are listed on paper by individual, it is natural to print the measurements on one
individual as a row of the table; then one individual corresponds to a row vector. Since we prefer
to operate algebraically with column vectors, we have chosen to treat observations in terms of
column vectors. (In practice, the basic data set may weD be on cards, tapes, or di.sks.)

An Introductihn to MuItiuanate Statistical Analysis, Third Edmon. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

1
 INTRODUCTION

most statisticians are limited to two-dimensional plots, two coordinates of the

observation are plotted in turn.
Characteristics of a univariate distribution of essential interest are the
mean as a measure of location and the standard deviation as a measure of
variability; similarly the mean and standard deviation of a univariate sample
are important summary measures. In multivariate analysis, the means and
variances of the separate measurements-for distributions and for samples
-have corresponding relevance. An essential aspect, however, of multivari-
ate analysis is the dependence between the different variables. The depen-
dence between two variables may involve the covariance between them, that
is, the average products of their deviations from their respective means. The
covariance standardized by the corresponding standard deviations is the
correlation coefficient; it serves as a measure of degree of depend~nce. A set
of summary statistics is the mean vector (consisting of the univariate means)
and the covariance matrix (consisting of the univariate variances and bivari-
ate covariances). An alternative set of summary statistics with the same
information is the mean vector, the set of' standard deviations, and the
correlation matrix. Similar parameter quantities describe location, variability,
and dependence in the population or for a probability distribution. The
multivariate nonnal distribution is completely determined by its mean vector
and covariance matrix~ and the sample mean vector and covariance matrix
constitute a sufficient set of statistics.
The measurement and analysis of dependence between variables~ between
sets of variables, and between variables and sets of variables are fundamental
to multivariate analysis. The multiple correlation coefficient is an extension
of the notion of correlation to the relationship of one variable to a set of
variables. The partial correlation coefficient is a measure of dependence
between two variables when the effects of other correlated variables have
been removed. The various correlation coefficients computed from samples
are used to estimate corresponding correlation coefficientS of distributions.
In this hook tests or hypothe~es or independence are developed. The proper-
ties of the estimators and test proredures are studied for sampling from the
multivariate normal distribution.
A number of statistical problems arising in multivariate populations are
straightforward analogs of problems arising in univariate populations; the
suitable methods for handling these problems are similarly related. For
example, ill the univariate case we may wish to test the hypothesis that the
mean of a variable is zero; in the multivariate case we may wish to test the
hypothesis that the vector of the means of several variables is the zero vector.
The analog of the Student t-test for the first hypOthesis is the generalized
T 2-test. The analysis of variance of a single variable is adapted to vector
1.2 THE ML"LTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 3

observations; in regression analysis, the dependent quantity may be a vector

variable. A comparison of variances is generalized into a comparison of
covariance matrices.
The test procedures of univariate statistics are generalized to the multi-
variate case in such ways that the dependence between variables is taken into
account. These methods may not depend on the coordinate system; that is,
the procedures may be invariant with respect to linear transformations that
leave the nUll. hypothesis invariant. In some problems there may be families
of tests that are invariant; then choices must be made. Optimal properties of
the tests are considered.
For some other purposes, however, it may be important to select a
coordinate system so that the variates have desired statistical properties. One
might say that they involve characterizations of inherent properties of normal
distributions and of samples. These are closely related to the algebraic
problems of canonical forms of matrices. An example is finding the normal-
ized linear combination of variables with maximum or minimum variance
(finding principal components); this amounts to finding a rotation of axes
that carries the covariance matrix to diagonal form. Another example is
characterizing the dependence between two sets of variates (finding canoni-
cal correlations). These problems involve the characteristic roots and vectors
of various matrices. The statistical properties of the corresponding sample
quantities are treated.
Some statistical problems arise in models in which means and covariances
are restricted. Factor analysis may be based on a model with a (population)
covariance matrix that is the sum of a positive definite diagonal matrix and a
positive semidefinite matrix of low rank; linear str Jctural relationships may
have a Similar formulation. The simultaneous equations system of economet-
rics is another example of a special model.

1.2. mE MULTIVARlATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The statistical methods treated in this book can be developed and evaluated
in the context of the multivariate normal distribution, though many of the
procedures are useful and effective when the distribution sampled is not
normal. A major reason for basing statistical analysis on the normal distribu-
tion is that this probabilistic model approximates well the distribution of
continuous measurements in many sampled popUlations. In fact, most of the
methods and theory have been developed to serve statistical analysis of data.
Mathematicians such as Adrian (1808), Laplace (1811), Plana (1813), Gauss
4 INTRODUCTION

(1823), and Bravais (1846) l:tudicd the bivariate normal density. Francis
Galton, th.! 3eneticist, introduced the ideas of correlation, regression, and
homoscedasticity in the study ·of pairs of measurements, one made on a
parent and OTJ~ in an offspring. [See, e.g., Galton (1889).] He enunciated the
theory of the multivariate normal distribution as a generalization of obsetved
properties of s2mples.
Karl Pearson and others carried on the development of the theory and use
of differe'lt kinds of correlation coefficients t for studying proble.ns in genet-
ics, biology, and other fields. R. A. Fisher further developed methods for
agriculture, botany, and anthropology, including the discriminant function for
classification problems. In another direction, analysis of scores 01 mental
tests led to a theory, including factor analysis, the sampling theory of which is
based on the normal distribution. In these cases, as well as in agricultural
experiments, in engineering problems, in certain economic problems, and in
other fields, the multivariate normal distributions have been found to be
sufficiently close approximations to the populations so that statistical analy-
ses based on these models are justified.
The univariate normal distribution arises frequently because the effect
studied is the sum of many independent random effects. Similarly, the
multivariate normal distribution often occurs because the multiple meaSUre-
ments are sums of small independent effects. Just as the central limit
theorem leads to the univariate normal distrL>ution for single variables, so
does the general central limit theorem for several variables lead to the
multivariate normal distribution.
Statistical theory based on the normal distribution has the advantage that
the multivariate methods based on it are extensively developed and can be
studied in an organized and systematic way. This is due not only to the need
for such methods because they are of practical US,!, but also to the fact that
normal theory is amenable to exact mathematical treatment. The 'suitable
methods of analysis are mainly based on standard operations of matrix.
algebra; the distributions of many statistics involved can be obtained exactly
or at least characterized; and in many cases optimum properties of proce-
dures can be deduced.
The point of view in this book is to state problems of inference in terms of
the multivariate normal distributions, develop efficient and often optimum
methods in this context, and evaluate significance and confidence levels in
these terms. This approach gives coherence and rigor to the exposition, but,
by its very nature, cannot exhaust consideration of multivariate &tUistical
analysis. The procedures are appropriate to many nonnormal distributions,

f For a detailed study of the development of the ideas of correlation, see Walker (1931),
1.2 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION s
but their adequacy may be open to question. Roughly speaking, inferences
about means are robust because of the operation of the central limit
theorem~ but inferences about covariances are sensitive to normality, the
variability of sample covariances depending on fourth-order moments.
This inflexibility of normal methods with respect to moments of order
greater than two can be reduced by including a larger class of elliptically
contoured distributions. In the univariate case the normal distribution is
determined by the mean and variance; higher-order moments and properties
such as peakedness and long tails are functions of the mean and variance.
Similarly, in the multivariate case the means and covariances or the means,
variances, and correlations determine all of the properties of the distribution.
That limitation is alleviated in one respect by consideration of a broad class
of elliptically contoured distributions. That class maintains the dependence
structure, but permits more general peakedness and long tails. This study
leads to more robust methods.
The development of computer technology has revolutionized multivariate
statistics in several respects. As in univariate statistics, modern computers
permit the evaluation of obsetved variability and significance of results by
resampling methods, such as the bootstrap and cross-validation. Such
methodology reduces the reliance on tables of significance points as well as
eliminates some restrictions of the normal distribution.
Nonparametric techniques are available when nothing is known about the
underlying distributions. Space does not permit inclusion of these topics as
well as o,\her considerations of data analysis, such as treatment of outliers
a.n?Jransformations of variables to approximate normality and homoscedas-
tIClty.
The availability of modem computer facilities makes possible the analysis
of large data sets and that ability permits the application of multivariate
methods to new areas, such as image analysis, and more effective a.nalysis of
data, such as meteorological. Moreover, new problems of statistical analysis
arise, such as sparseness of parameter Or data matrices. Because hardware
and software development is so explosive and programs require specialized
knowledge, we are content to make a few remarks here and there about
computation. Packages of statistical programs are available for most of the
methods.
CHAPTER 2

The Multivariate
Normal Distribution

2.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we discuss the multivariate normal distribution and some of

its properties. In Section 2.2 are considered the fundamental notions of
multivariate distributions: the definition by means of multivariate density
functions, marginal distributions, conditional distributions, expected values,
and moments. In Section 2.3 tht multivariate normal distribution is defined;
the parameters are shown to be the means, variances, and covariances or the
means, variances, and correlations of the components of the random vector.
In Section 2.4 it is shown that linear combinations of normal variables are
normally distributed and hence that marginal distributions are normal. In
Section 2.5 we see that conditional distributions are also normal with means
that are linear functions of the conditioning variables; the coefficients are
regression coefficients. The variances, covariances, and correlations-called
partial correlations-are constants. The multiple correlation coefficient is
the maximum correlation between a scalar random variable and linear
combination of other random variables; it is a measure of association be-
tween one variable and a set of others. The fact that marginal and condi-
tional distributions of normal distributions are normal makes the treatment
of this family of di~tribution~ coherent. In Section 2.6 the characteristic
function, moments, and cumulants are discussed. In Section 2.7 elliptically
contoured distributions are defined; the properties of the normal distribution
arc extended to this Iarger cla~s of distributions .

. 41/ Illlrodl/(lIlll/ 10 Mull/l!analc Siulisl/cal Al/lIIYM~. Hllrd c;dillOll. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

6
2.2 NOTIONS OF MULTIVARIATE DISTRIBUTIONS 7

2.2. NOTIONS OF MULTIVARIATE DISTRIBUTIONS

2.2.1. Joint Distributions

In this section we shall consider the notions of joint distributions of several
variable~, derived marginal distributions of subsets of variables, and derived
conditional distributions. First consider the case of two (real) random
variables t X and Y. Probabilities of events defined in terms of these variables
can be obtained by operations involving the cumulative distribution function
(abbrevialed as cdf),

(1) F(x,y) =Pr{X~x, Y~y},

defined for every pair of real numbers (x, y). We are interested in cases
where F(x, y) is absolutely continuous;· this means that the following partial
derivative exists almost everywhere:

a 2 F(x, y) _
(2) a-~ay -f(x,y),

and
y x
(3) F(x,y) =
f-00
f
-00
f(u,v) dudv.

The nonnegative function f(x, y) is called the density of X and Y. The pair
of random variables ex, Y) defines a random point in a plane. The probabil-
ity that (X, Y) falls in a rectangle is

(4) Pr{x~X~x+6.x,y~Y~y+6.y}

""F(x+6.x,y+6.y) -F(x+6.x,y) -F(x,y+6.y) +F(x,y)

= jYY+6 Y j.l+6X
x
f(u,v) dudv

(6.x> 0, 6.y> 0). The probability of the random point (X, Y) falling in any
set E for which the following int.!gral is defined (that is, any measurable set
E) is

(5) Pr{(X,Y)EE} = f f/(x,y)dxdy .

tIn Chapter 2 we shall distinguish between random variables and running variables by use of
capital and lowercase letters, respectively. In later chapters we may be unable to hold to this
convention because of other complications of notation.
8 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

This follows from the definition of the integral ks the limit of sums of the
sort (4)]. If j(x, y) is continuous in both variables, the probability element
j(x, y) tl y tl x is approximately the probability that X falls between x and
x + tlx and Y falls between y and y + tly since

Y+~YfX+~X
(6) Pr{x::;X::;x+tlx,y::;Y::;y+tly} =
fY x
j(u,v)dudv

for some xo,Yo (x ::;xo:::;;x + tlx, y ::;Yo:::;;y + tly) by the mean value theo~
rem of calculus. Since j(u, [) is continuous, (6) is approximately j(x, y) tlx tl y.
In fact,

(7) lim tl 1tl I Pr{ x ::; X :::;; x + tl x, y :::;; y :::;; y + tl y }

~y-->o x y
~y·->o

-j(x,y)tlxtlyl =0.

Now we consider the case of p random variables Xl' X 2 , ••• , Xp' The
cdf is

(8)

defined for every set of real numbers XI"'" xp' The density function, if
F(Xh'''' x p ) is absolutely continuous, is

(9)

(almost everywhere), and

.,
The probability of falling in any (measurable) set R in the p-dimensional
Euclidean space is

The probability element j(Xl"'" x p) tlxl '" tlxp is approximately the prob-
ability Pr{x l ::;Xl ::;Xl + tlxl, ... ,x p ::;Xp ::;x p + tlxp} if j(Xl'''''X p) is
2.2 NOTIONS OF MULTIVARIATE DISTRIBUTIONS 9

continuous. The joint moments are defined as t

~.2.2. Marginal Distributions

Given the edf of two randcm variables X, Y as being F(x, y), the marginal
edf of X is

(13) Pr{X :=;x} = Pr{X :::;;x, Y ~ oo}

=F(x,oo).

Let this be F(x). Clearly

x 00
(14) F(x) = I I f( u, v) dvdu.
-00 _00

We call
00
(15) I f(u,v)dv=f(u),
-00

say, the marginal density of X. Then (14) is

(16) F(x) = IX feu) duo

-00

In a similar fashion we define G(y), the marginal edf of Y, and g(y), the
marginal density of Y.
Now we turn to the general case. Given F(x l , •.• , x p ) as the edf of
XII"" Xp, w(.; wish to find the marginal edf of some of Xl"'" X p' say, of
Xl"'" Xr (r <p). It is

= F( Xl"'" Xr ' 00, ... ,00).

The marginal density of Xl."', Xr is

1_
00 00

(IS) '" I_J(XI, ... ,Xr>Ur+I, ... ,up)dur+1 · .. du p'

00

t I will be used to denote mathematical expectation.

lO THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DiSTRIBUTION

The marginal distribution and density of any other subset of Xl"'" Xp are
obtained in the obviously similar fashion.
The joint moments of a subset of variates can be computed from the
marginal distribution; for example,

2.2.3. Statistical Independence

Two random variables X, Y with cdf F{x, y) are said to be independent if
(20) F(x,y) =F(x)G(y),
where F(x) is the marginal cdf of X and G{y) is the marginal cdf of Y. This
implies that the density of X, Y is

= a 2F(x,y) = a 2F(x)G(y)
(21 ) f( x, y ) ax ay ax ay
_ dF(x) dG(y)
- dx dy
= f(x)g(y).
Conversely, if flx, y) = f{x)g{y), then

(22) F(x,y) = J~~J~J(u)v) dudv= J~::oJ~J(u)g(v) dudv

= J~J( u) du J~~g( v) dv = F(x)G(y).

Thus an equivalent definition of independence in the case of densities

existing is that f{x, y) == f{x) g{y). To see the implications of statistical
independence, given any Xl <x 2 ' Yl <Y2, we consider the probability
(23) Pr{Xl5 X 5 x 2 , YI 5 Y 5Y2}
x 2
= fY2f 1f ( u, v) dudv = fX f (U) du fY2 g ( v) dv
YI XI XI YI

= Pr{Xl 5 X 5X 2 } Pr{Yl 5 Y 5Yz}.

2.2 NOTIONS OF MULTIVARIATE DISTRIBUTIONS 11

The probability of X falling in a given interval and Y falling in a given

interval is the product of the probability of X falling in the interval and the
probability of Y falling in the other interval.
If the cc'f of XI"'" Xp is F(x l , ••. , x p), the set of random variables is said
to be mutually independent if

(24)

where Fi(x,) is the marginal cdf of XI' i = 1, ... , p. The set Xl" .. , Xr is said
to be independent of the set Xr+ 1, ••. , Xp if

(25) F(XI""'X p) =F(xp ... ,xr,oo, ... ,oo)·F(oo, ... ,oo,xr+" ... ,x,).

One result of independence is that joint moments factor. For example, if

Xl" .. , Xp are mutually indep~ndent, then

2.2.4. Conditional Distributions

If A and B are two events such that the probability of A and B occurring
simultaneously is P(AB) and the probability of B occurring is P(B) > 0,
then the conditional probability of A occurring given that B has occurred is
P(AB)/P(B). Suppose the event A is X falling in the interval [Xl' Xz] and
the event B is Y falling in [YI' Yz]. Then the conditional probability that X
falls in [Xl' xzl given that Y falls in [YI' Y2]' is

Pr{xJ ~ X ~X2' YI ~ Y ~Yz}

(27) Pr {x I ~ X ~ x21y I ~ Y ~ Yz} = P { Y }
rYI~ ~Y2

Now let Yl = Y, Yz = Y + ~y. Then for a continuous density,

(28) jYY+AYg( v) dv = g(y*) ~Y,

12 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DlSTRIBUTION

where y :::;y* :::;y + ~y. Also

y + ay
(29)
fy
f( u, v) du = f[ u, y* (u)l ~y,

where y :::;y*{u):=;;y + ~y. '111ercfore,

(30)

1t will be 110ticcu that for fixed y ,Illd ~y (> 0), the integrand of(30) behaves
as a univariate density function. Now for y such that g{y) > 0, we define
Pr{x 1 ~ X ~ \ 21 Y = y}, the probability that X lies between Xl and x 2 ' given
that Y is y, as the limit of (30) as ~y -+ O. Thus
X2
(31) Pr{xl:::;X :::;x 2 IY=y} =
fXI
f(uly) du,

where f{u Iy ) = f{u, y )I g{y). For given y, f{ u Iy) is a density funct~on and is
called the conditional density of X given y. We note that if X and Yare
independent, f{xly) = f{x).
In the general case of Xl''''' X r, with cdf F{x l , ... , x p ), the conditional
density of Xl"'" Xn given X'+l =X,+l"'" Xp =xp' is

(32)

For a more general discussion of conditional probabilities, the reader is

referred to Chung (1974), Kolmogorov (1950), Loeve (1977), (1978), and
Neveu (1965).

2.2.5. Transformation of Variables

Let the density of Xl"'" Xp be f{x l , .•• , x p )' Consider the p real-valued
functions

(33) i=l, ... ,p.

We assume that the transformation from the x-space to the y-space is

one-to-one;t the inverse transformation is

(34) i = 1, .•• ,p.

tMore precisely. we assume this is true for the part of the x-space for which f(x 1, ... , x p) is
positive.
2.3 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 13

Let the rand om variables Y l , •.• , Yp be defined by

(35) i = 1, ... ,p.

Then the density of Y 1, ••• , Yp is

(36) g(YI,""Yp) =f[Xl(Yl""'YP), ... ,Xp(Yl, ... ,Yp)]J(yp ... ,Yp)'

where J(YI"." Yp) is the Jacobian
ax, aX l aX l
aYl ah ayp
aX 2 aX 2 aX 2
aYI ah ayp
(37) J(Yl,''''Yp) = mod

axp axp axp

aYI aY2 ayp

We assume the derivatives exist, and "mod" means modulus or absolute value
of the expression following it. The probability that (Xl"'" Xp) falls in a
region R is given by (11); the probability that (Y1, ••• , Yp) falls in a region S is

If S is the transform of R, that is, if each point of R transforms by (33) into a

point of S and if each point of S transforms into R by (34), then (11) is equal
to (3U) by the usual theory of transformation of multiple integrals. From this
follows the assertion that (36) is the density of Y1, ••• , Yp'

2.3. THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The univariate normal density function can be written

t
(1) .
where ex is positive ang k is chosen so that the integral of (1) over the entire
x-axis is unity. The density function of a multivariate normal distribution of
XI"'" Xp has an analogous form. The scalar variable x is replaced by a
vector

(2) x=
14 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

the scalar constant {3 is replaced by a vector

(3)

and t he positive constant a is replaced by a positive definite (symmetric)

matrix

all a l2 alp
a 21 a 22 a 2p
(4) A=

a pI a p2 a pp

The square a(x - (3)2 = (x - (3)a(x - (3) is replaced by the quadratic form
p
(5) (x-b)'A(x-h)= E a,;Cx,-bj)(xj-bj)'
i.J= I

Thus the density function of a p-variate normal distribution is

( 6) f( X p ... , X p )
= v
1\.1e - !tl'-b)'A(x-b) ,

where K (> 0) is chosen so that the integral over the entire p-dimensional
Euclidean space of Xl"'" xp is unity.
Written in matrix notation, the similarity of the multivariate normal
density (6) to the univariate density (1) is clear. Throughout this book we
shall use matrix notation and operations. Th; reader is referred to the
Appendix for a review of matrix theory and for definitions of our notation for
matrix operations.
We observe that f(x I ' " ., x) is nonnegative. Since A is positive definite,

(7) (x-b)'A(x-b) ~O,

and therefore the density is bounded; that is,

(ti)

Now let us determine K so that the integral of (6) over the p-dimensional
space is one. We shall evaluate

( 9) K* = f ... f
::x:

IX. •
::x:

rx:;
e-- +(.r-b)'A(x-b) dx
p
'" dx l ·
2.3 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 15

We use the fact (see Corollary A.1.6 in the Appendix) that if A is positive
definite, there exists a nonsingular matrix C such that

(10) C'AC=I,

where I denotes the identity and C' the transpose of C. Let

( 11) x - b = Cy,
where

(12)

Then

(13) (x - b) 'A(x - b) = y'C' ACy = y'y.

The Jacobian of the transformation is

(14) J= modlCI,

where modi CI indicates the absolute value of the determinant of C. Thus (9)
becomes

(15) K* = modlCI j oo_00

...
joo e-
_00
I.
2Y Y dyp'" dYl'

We have

(16)

where exp(z) = e We can write (15) as

Z
•

p
= mod ICI fl {v'27T}
1= 1
16 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

by virtue of

(18) -1- foo e- I 2

jl
dt = 1.
V27r -00

Corresponding to (10) is the determinantal equation

( 19) le/I·IAI·lel = III.

Since

(20) le'l =Iel,

and since III = 1, we deduce from (19) that

(21) mod lei = 11M.

Thus

(22)

The normal density function is

(23)

We shall now show the significance of b and A by finding tne first and
second moments of Xl"'" Xp' It will be convenient to consider these
random va;iables as constituting a random vector

(24)

We shall define generally a random matrix and the expected value of a

random matrix; a random vector is considered as a special case of a random
matrix with one column.

Definition 2.3.1. A random matrix Z is a matrix

(25) g=I, ... ,m, h=I, ... ,n,

of random variables Z II' •.. , Zm/!"

2.3 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 17

If the random variables Zl1"'" Zmn can take on only a finite number of
values, the random matrix Z can be one of a (mite number of matrices, say
Z(l), ... , Z(q). If the probability of Z = Z(i) is P" then we should like to
define tlZ as 1:.1.1 Z(i),?" Then tlZ = (tlZ gh ). If the random variables
Zu, ... , Zmn have a joint density, then by operating with Riemann sums we
can define tlZ as the limit (if the limit exists) of approximating sums of the
kind occurring in the dis(!rete case; then again tlZ = (tlZ gh ). Therefore, in
general we shall use the following definition:

Definition 2.3.2. The expected value of a random matrix Z fl-

(26) g=l, ... ,m, h=l, ... ,n.

In particular if Z is X defined by (24), the expected value

(27)

is the mean or mean vector of X. We shall usually denote this mean vector by
JL. If Z is (X - JLXX - JL)', the expected value is

(28) f/( X) = tI( X - JL)( X - JL)' = [ 8( XI - Ik,)( Xj - Ik})] ,

the covariance or covariance matrix of X. The ith diagonal element of this

matrix, 8(Xj - Ikj)2, is the variance of X" and the i, jth off-diagonal ele-
ment, tI(Xj - lkiXXj - Ikj)' is the covariance of Xi and Xi' i:f: j. We shall
usually denote the covariance matrix by I. Note that

The operation of taking the expected value of a random matrix (or vector)
satisfies certain rules which we can summarize in the following lemma:

Lemma 2.3.1. If Z is all m X n random matrix, D is an I X m real matrix,

E is an n X q real matrix, and F is an I X q real matrix, then

(30) 8( DZE + F) = D( tlZ)E + F.

18 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Proof The element in the ith row and jth column of S(DZE + F) is

(31) S( E d,,,Zhgeg; + fl') = E d,h ( (~'L',g )e gJ +f, j ,

". g h.g

which is the element in the ith row and jth column of D( SZ)E + F .
•
Lemma 2.3.2. If Y= DX + f, where X is a random vector, then

(32) S Y= D SX +f,
(33) C~Y) =Dg(X)D'.

Pl'Ouf The first assertion follows directly from Lemma 23.1, and the
second from

(34) g(}') = cS' (Y - cS' Y)( Y - S Y )'

= S[DX +.f- (D cS'X +f)] [DX +f- (DSX +f)]'
= cS'[D(X- SX)][D(X- cS'X)] ,
= S[D(X- SX)(X- cS'X)'D'],

which yields the right-hand side of (33) by Lemma 2.3.1. •

When the transformation corresponds to (11), that is, X = CY + b, then

cS' X = C SY + b. By the transformation theory given in Section 2.2, the density
of Y is proportional to (16); that is, it is

(35)

The expected value of tbe ith component of Y is

(36)

=
1
/2'Tr
jX_ ~l,e - I '
I'\',· dy,

=0.
2.3 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 19

The last equality follows because t yje- !'y~ is an odd function of Yi' Thus
IY = O. Therefore, the mean of X, denoted by j-L, is

(37) j-L=GX=b.

From (33) we see that -€(X) = C(GYY')C'. The i,jth element of GYY' is

(38) GY;~ = f OO
...
foo YIYj nP {I I 2} dYl ... dyp
- - e - 2Yh
-0 -~ h=l f27r

because the density of Y !s (35). If i = j, we have

(39)

The last equality follows because the next to last expression is the expected
value of the square of a variable normally distributed with mean 0 and
variance 1. If i -+ j, (38) becomes

(40)

= 0, i -+ j,
since the first integration gives O. We can summarize (39) and (40) as

( 41) GYY' = I.

Thus

(42) G( X - j-L)( X - j-L) '= CIC ' = CC'.

From (10) we obtain A = (C,)-IC- 1 by multiplication by (C,)-l on the left

and by C- 1 on the right. Taking inverses on both sides of the equality

tAlternatively, the last equality follows because the next to last expression is the expected value
of a normally distributed variable with mean O.
20 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

gives us
( 43)

Thus, the covariance matrix of X is

(44)

From (43) we see that I is positive definite. Let us summarize these results.

Theorem 2.3.1. If the density of a p-dimensional random vector X is (23),

then the expected value of X is b alld the covariance matru is A -I. Conversely,
given a vector j.L and a positive definite matrix I, there is a multivariate normal
density

(45)

such that the expected value of the vector with this density is j.L and the covariance
matrix is I.

We shall denote the density (45) as n(xl j.L, :~) and the distribution law as
N(j.L, I).
The ith L!iagonal element of the covariance matrix, (Iii> is the variance of
the ith component of X; we may sometimes denote this by (J/. The
co"elation coefficient between X, and X J is defined as

(46)

This measure of association is symmetric in Xi and Xj: PiJ = PjI' Since

(47)

is positive definite (Corollary A.1.3 of the Appendix), the determinant

aap
J IJ _ 2 2( 2)
a, ~
I
(48) 2 - 1- Pij
~

is positive. Therefore, - 1 < P'J < L (For singular distributions, see Section
2.4.) The multivariate normal density can be parametrized by the means J.L;,
i = 1, ... , p, the variances a/, i = 1, ... , p, and the correlations Pij' i <$
i, j = 1, ... , p~ <"!
2.3 THE MtjLTIVARIATENORMAL DISTRIBUTION 21

As a special case of the preceding theory, we consider the bivariate normal

distribution. The mean vector is

(49)

the covariance matrix may be written

(50)
( Xl - J.L1)( X 2 ~ J.L2) )
(X 2 -J.L2)

where a} is the variance of Xl' U22 the variance of X 2, and p the

correlation between XI and X 2 - The inverse of (50) is

1 --p-
2 u 1U 2
U1
(51) I- l = 1
1 - p2 --p- I
0"lU2 u 22

The density function of Xl and X 2 is

(52)

Tbeorem 2.3.2. The co"elation coefficient p Of any bivariate distribution is

invariant with respect to transformations X;* = bjXj + C j ' bi > 0, i = 1,2_ Every
function of the parameters of a bivariate normal distribution that is invariant with
respect to sueh transformations is a function of p.

Proof. The variance of XI* is b12u 12 , i = 1,2, and the covariance of Xi and
Xi is b1b2u1u2 p by Lemma 2.3.2_ Insertion of these values into the
definition of the correlation between xt and Xi shows that it is p_ If
f{ ILl' IL2' U 1, U 2 , p) is inval iant with respect to such transformations, it must
be .rcO, 0, 1, 1, p) by choice of bi = 1/ ui and c j = - ILJ u j , i = 1,2. •
22 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Till.: correlation coefficient p is the natural measure of association between

XI and X 2 . Any function of the parameters of the bivariate normal distribu-
tion that is indepcndent of the scale and location parameters is a function of
p. The standardized variable" (or standard score) is 1"; = (Xi - /J.)/ui. The
mean squared difference between the two standardized variables is

(53)

The smaller (53) is (that is, the larger p is), the more similar Y1 and Y2 are. If
p> 0, Xl and X"]. tend to be positively related, and if p < 0, they tend to be
negatively related. If p = 0, the density (52) is the product o' the marginal
densities of Xl and X"].; hence XI and X 2 are independent.
It will be noticed that the density function (45) is constant on ellipsoids

(54)

for I;!ver: positive value of c in a p.dimensional Euclidean space. The center

of each ellipsoid is at the point I-l. The shape and orientation of the ellipsoid
are determined by I, and the size (given I) is determined by c. Because (54)
is a ~pberc if l. = (T ~ I, I/(xll-l, (r"1) is known as a spherical normal density.
Let w; consider in detail the bivariate case of the density (52). We
transform coordinates by (Xl -/J.)/UI =YI' i = 1,2, so that the centers of the
loci of constant density are at the origin. These 10el are defined by

(55) 1
----,-2 (2
YI-2pYIY2+Y22) =c.
1-p

Thl~ intercepts on the Y l·axis and h-axis are ~qual. If p > 0, the major axis of
the t:llipse is along the 45 0 line with a length of 2yc( 1 + p) , and the minor
axis has a length of 2yc( 1 - p) , If p < 0, the major axis is along the 135 0 line
with a length of 2yc( 1 - p) , and the minor axis has a length of 2yc( 1 + p) .
The value of p determines the ratio of these lengths. In this bivariate case we
can think of the density function as a surface above the plane. The contours
of equal density are contours of equal altitude on a topographical map; the~r
indicate the shape of the hill (or probability surface). If p> 0, the hill will
tend to run along a line with a positive slope; most of the hill will be in the
first and third quadrants. When we transform back to Xi = uiYi + J.Li' we
expand each contour by a factor of U I in the direction of the ith axis and
shift the center to ( J.LI' J.L2)·
2.4 liNEAR COMBINATIONS; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS 23

The numerical values of the cdf of the univariate normal variable are
obtained from tables found in most statistical texts. The numerical values of

(56)

where Yl = (Xl - 1-'-1)/0'1 and Y2 = (x 2 - 1-'-2)/0'2' can be found in Pearson

(1931). An extensive table has been given by the National Bureau of Stan-
dards (1959). A bibliography of such tables has been given by Gupta (1963).
Pearson has also shown that
00

(57) F(X I ,X 2 ) = I: pfTf(YdTj(Yz),

1'=0

where the so-called tetrachoric functions T/Y) are tabulated in Pearson (1930)
up to T I 9(Y). Harris and Soms (1980) have studied generalizations of (57).

2.4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF LINEAR COMBINATIONS OF

NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED VARIATES; INDEPENDENCE
OF VARIATES; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS

One of the reasons that the study of normal multivariate distributions is so

useful is that marginal distributions and conditional distributions derived
from multivariate normal distributions are also normal distributions. More-
over, linear combinations of multivariate normal variates are again normally
distributed. First we shall show that if we make a nonsingular linear transfor-
mation of a vector whose components have a joint distribution with a normal
density, we obtain a vector whose components are jointly distributed with a
normal density.

Theorem 2.4.1. Let X (with p components) be distributed according to

N(fL, I). Then
(1) y= ex

is distributed according to N(CfL, ClC f

) for C nonsingular.

Proof. The density of Y is obtained from the density of X, n(xl fL, I), by
replacing x by

(2) x=C-1y,
24 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

and multiplying by the Jacobian of the transformation (2),

(3) moctlC-11 = modlCI =

lIT
V IC~- = III
-:-.:--:-::=-=--~:-:-=----:-
ICI·III·IC'I

The quadratic form in the exponent of n(xl p., I) is

(4)
The transformmion (2) carries Q into

(5) Q = (C- 1Y P. ),1- 1 (C- I Y - p.)

= (C- I Y C·-ICp. ),1- 1 (C- 1y - C-1Cp.)

== [C-1(y-Cp.)]'I-1[C I(y-Cp.)]

= (y Cp.)'( C- 1 ) 'I-1c- 1 (y - Cp.)

== (y - Cp.)'(CIC,)-I(y - Cp.)
since (C- I ), = (C')-l by virtue of transposition of CC- 1 = I. Thus the
density of Y is

(6) n( C-lyl p., I)modICI- 1

= (2 7r ) - ~fli C I C I - 1exp [ - ~ (y - C P. ) , ( C I C') - 1 (y - C P. ) ]
1

= n(yICp.,CIC'). •

Now let uS consider two sets of random variables XI"'" Xq and

Xq+ 1 ' ' ' ' ' Xp forming the vectors

(7)

These variables form the random vector

= I' X(l) \ =
(8) X (2) I
\X I

Now let us assume that the p variates have a joint normal distribution with
mean vectors

(9)
2.4 LINEAR COMBINATIONS; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS 25

and covariance matrices

(1~) 8(X(1) - p.(1))(X(l) - p.(1)Y I 1P

=:

(11) 8( X(2) - p.(2))( X(2) - p.(2))' =: I 22 ,

(12) 8(X(1) - p.(1))(X(2) - p.(2)), = I 12
•

We say that the random vector X has been partitioned in (8) into subvectors,
that

(13) =: ( p.0) )
P. (2)
P.

has been partitioned similarly into subvectors, and that

(14)

has been partitioned similarly into submatrices. Here I2l = I'12' (See Ap-
pendix, Section A.3.)
We shall show that XO) and X(2) are independently normally distributed
if II2 = I;1 = O. Then

(15)

Its inverse is

(16)

Thus the quadratic form in the exponent of n(xl p., I) is

(17) Q ~ (x- p.),I-1(x- p.)

= [( x(l) _ p.(l)) , ,( X(2) _ p.(2)y] (I0111 0) (X(l) - p.(l»)

I2"z1 p.(2)X(2) -
•

= [( x(l) - 1'-(1)), l: I,' , ( x(2) - 1'-(2»), l:;1 I (:::: =~::: )

"== (x(1) - p.(l)YI 1/(x(1) - p.0») + (X(2) - p.(2»),I2"zI(.r(2) - p.(2»)
= Qt + Q2'
26 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

say, where

Ql = (X(I) - JL(1)),III I (X(I) - JL(I»),

(18)
Qz = (X(2) - JL(2») '1221 (X(2) - JL(2»).

Also we note that III = II III ·1 I z2 1. The density of X can be written

(19)

The marginal density of X(I) is given by the integral

Thus the marginal distribution of X(l) is N(JL(l), Ill); similarly the marginal
distribution of X(Z) is N(JL(2), I zz ). Thus the joint density of Xl' .. " Xp is the
product of the marginal density of Xl'.'" Xq and the marginal density of
Xq+ 1' ..• , Xp, and therefore the two sets of variates are independent. Since
the numbering of variates can always be done so that XO) consists of any
subset of the variates, we have proved the sufficiency in the following
theorem:

Theorem 2.4.2. If Xl"'.' Xp have a joint normal distribution, a necessary

and sufficient condition for one subset of the random variables and the subset
consisting of the remaining variables to be independent is that each covariance of
a variable from one set and a variable from the other set is O.
2.4 LINEAR COMBINATIONS; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS 27

The m cessity follows from the fact that if XI is from one set and Xj from
the other, then for any density (see Section 2.2.3)

·f{Xq+p .. "xp)dxl"·dxp

= f_oooo '" {·'ooo(x

j
P-1)f{xl, ... ,xq ) dx l ... dx q

'f_oooo '" f:oo(x} p-j)f(xq+p''''x p ) dx q +1 ... dx p

= o.
Since aij = aiGj PI}' and 0;, OJ ::1= 0 (we tacitly assume that :I is nonsingular),
the condition aij - 0 is equivalent to PI} = O. Thus if one set of variates is
uncorrelated with the remaining variates, the two sets are independent. It
should be emphasized that the implication of independence by lack of
correlation depends on the assumption of normality, but the converse is
always true,
. Let us consider the special case of the bivariate normal distribution. Then
X (I) = X I' X(2) = X 2' .. 0) = I I
....
. . (2) = I I
,-1' ....
~
,-2''';''11
= a II = a 1''';''22
2 ~ = a 22 = (]",2'
2

and :I12 = :I21 = a l2 = al a2 P12' Thus if XI and X z have a bivariate normal

distribution, they are independent if and only if they are uncorrelated. If they
are uncorrelated, the marginal distribution of XI is normal with mean p-( and
variance a/. The above discussion also proves the following corollary:

Corollary 2.4.1. If X is distributed according to N(II-,:I) and if a set of

components of X is uncorrelated with the other components, the marginal
distribution of the set is multivariate normal with means, variances, and couari-
ances obtained by taking the corresponding components of II- and :I, respectively.

Now let us show that the corollary holds even if the two <;ets are not
independent. We partition X, 11-, and :I as before. We shall make a
nonsingular Hnear transformation to subvectors

(22) y(l) X(l) + BX(2) ,

(23) y(2) = X(2) ,

choosing B so that the components of y(l) are uncorrelated with the

28 THE MULTIVAR lATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

components of y(2) = X(2). The matrix B must satisfy the equation

(24) 0 = $(y(l) _ $y(I»)(y(2) _ $y(2»),

= $(X(l) + EX (2) - $X(I) -B$X(2»)(X(2) - $X(2»),

= $[ (X(l) - $ X(I») + B( X(2) - $ X(2»)] (X(2) - $ X(2»),

= Il2 + BIn·

(25) y(l)-X(I)_,,- ",,-lX(2)

- -12-22 .

The vector

Y (l») = y = (/ - "" "" -I )

-1/2-22 X
(26) ( y(2) 0

is a nonsingular transform of X, and therefore has a normal distribution with

(27)

- ""
-12 I 22
-I 1(.. 1
r-(I)
/ ~(2)

=v,

say, anJ

(28) 1f(Y)=$(Y-v)(Y-v)'

= ($(Y(l) - v(l»)(y(I) - v(l»)' $ (y(I) - v(l») (y(2) - v(2»), 1

cf(y(2) - V(2»)(y(l) - V(I»), $ (y(2) _ v(2») (y(2) _ v(2»),

~ ('£ 11 -'£ ~ '£ 221'£21 ,£0,J

2.4 LINEAR COMBINATIONS; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS 29

since

(29) tf( y(J) - v(l)( y(J) - v O»'

= tf[(X(1) - jJ.(l») - ~12~2i1 (X(2) - jJ.(2»)]

. [(X(I) - jJ.(I») - II2~2il(X(2) - jJ.(2»)),

= ~ll - ~)2~221~2) - ~)2~22!~21 + ~)2~221~22~2i~21

=~11-~)2~221~21'

Thus y(l) and y(2) are independent, and by Corollary 2.4.1 X(2) = y(2) has
the marginal distribution N(pP>' ~22)' Because the numbering of the compo--
nents of X is arbitrary, we can state the following theorem:

Theorem 2.4.3. If X is distributed according to N( jJ., ~), the marginal

distribution of any set of components of X is multivariate normal with means,
variances, and covariances obtained by taking the corresponding components of
jJ. and ~, r~spectively.

Now consid~r any transformation

(30) Z=DX,
where Z has q components and D is a q X P real matrix. The expected value
of Z is

(31)

and the covariance matrix is

(32)

The case q = p and D nonsingular has been treated above. If q ;5; p and D is
of rank q. we can find a (p - q) X P matrix E such that

(33) (;)=(~)X
is a nonsingular transformation. (See Appendix. Section A.3J Then Z and W
have a joint normal distribution, and Z has a marginal normal distribution by
Theorem 2.4.3. Thus for D of rank q (and X having a nonsingular distribu-
tion, that is, a density) we have proved the following theorem:
30 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Tbeorem 2.4.4. If X is distributed according to N(t-t, I), then Z = DX is

distributed according to N(Dt-t, DID'), where D is a q X P matrix of rank q 5.p.

The remainder of this section is devoted to the singular or degeneratt

normal distribution and the extension of Theorem 2.4.4 to the case of any
matrix D. A singular distribution is a distribution in p-space that is concen-
trated On a lower dimensional set; that is, the probability associated with any
set not intersecting the given set is O. In the case of the singular normal
distribution the mass is concentrated on a given linear set [that is, the
intersection of a number of (p - I)-dimensional hyperplanes]. Let y be a set
of coordinat~s in the linear set (the number of coordinates equaling the
dimensionality of the linear set); then the parametric definition of the linear
set can be given as x = Ay + A, where A is a p X q matrix and A is a
p-vector. Suppose that Y is normally distributed in the q-dimensional linear
set; then we say that

(34) X=AY+A

has a singular or degenerate normal distribution in p-space. If SY = v, then

.fX=A.v + A = Jl., say. If S(Y - vxy- v)' = T, then

(35) .f(X- Jl.)(X- t-t)' = .fA(Y-v)(Y-v)'A' =ATA' =I,

say. It should be noticed that if p > q, then I is singular and therefore has
no inverse, and thus we cannot write the normal density for X. In fact, X
cannot have a density at all, because the fact that the probability of any set
not intersectmg the q-set is 0 would imply that the density is 0 almost
everywhere.
Now. conversely, let us see that if X has mean t-t and covariance matrix ~
of rank r, it can be written as (34) (except for 0 probabilities), where X has
an arbitrary distribution, and Y of r (~p) components has a suitable
distribution. If ~ is of rank r, there is a p X P nonsingular matrix B such
thaI

(36) BIB' = (~ :),

where the identity is of order r. (See Theorem A.4.1 of the Appendix.) The
transformation

(37) BX=V=
V(l»)
( V(2)
2.4 LINEAR COMBINATIONS; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS 31

defines a random vector Y with covariance matrix (36) and a mean vector

(38)

say. Since the variances of the elements of y(2) are zero, y(2) = v(2) with
probability 1. Now partition

(39) B- 1 (C D),

where C consists of r columns. Then (37) is equivalent to

(40)

Thus with probability 1

(41) X CV O) + Dv C;'),

which is of the form of (34) with C as A, yO) as Y, and Dv(2) as ~.

Now we give a formal definition of a normal distribution that includes the
singular distribution.

Definition 2.4.1. A random vector X of p components with GX =,..,

and
G(X - ,..,XX - ,..,)' = 'I is said to be normally distributed [or is said to be
distributed according to N(,.." I)] if there is a transformation (34), where the
number of rows ofA is p and the number of columns is the rank of I, say r, and
Y (of r components) has a nonsingular normal distribution, that is, has a density

(42)

It is clear that if I has rank p, then A can be taken to be I and ~ to be

0; then X = Y and Definition 2.4.1 agrees with Section 23. To avoid redun~
dancy in Definition 2.4.1 we could take T = I and v = O.

Theorem 2.4.5. If X is distributed according to N(,.." I), then Z = DX is

distributed according to N(D,.." DID').

This theorem includes the cases where X may have a nonsingular Or a

singular distribution and D may be nonsingular Or of rank less than q. Since
X can be represented by (34), where Y has a nonsingular distribution
32 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

N( 11, T), we can write

(43) Z=DAY+DA,

where DA is q X r. If the rank of DA is r, the theorem is proved. If the rank

is less than r, say s, then the covariance matrix of Z,

(44) DATA'D' =E,

say, is of rank s. By Theorem AA.l of the Appendix, there is a nonsingular

matrix

(45)

such that

F EF'
(46) FEF' = ( I I
F2EF;

= (FlDA)T(FIDA)' «FFlDA ))TT«:2DD~ )):) = (los 00)'

(F2DA)T(FIDA)' 2DA .t'2 ~

Thus FI DA is of rank s (by the converse of Theorem A.l.l of the Appendix),

and F2DA = 0because each diagonal element of (F2DA)T(F2DA)' is 11
quadratic form in a row of F2 DA with positive definite matrix T. Thus the
covariance matrix of FZ is (46), and

say. Clearly UI has a nonsingular normal distribution. Let F- l = (G l G 2 ).

Then

(48)

which is of the form (34).

•
The developments in this section can be illuminated by considering the
geometric interpretation put forward in the previous section. The density of
X is constant on the ellipsoids (54) of Section 2.3. Since the transformation
(2) is a linear transformation (Le., a change of coordinate axes), the density of
2.5 CONDITIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS; MULTIPLE CORRELATION 33

Y is constant on eUipsoius
(49)
The marginal distribution of X(l) is the projection of the mass of the
distribution of X onto the q~dimensional space of the first q coordinate axes.
The surfaces of constant density are again ellipsoids. The projection of mass
on any line is normal.

2.S. CONDITIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND MULTIPLE

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

2.S.1. Conditional Distributions

In this section we find that conditional distributions derived from joint
normal distribution are normal. The conditional distributions are of a partic-
ularly simple nature because the means depend only linearly on the variates
held fixed, and the variances and covariances do not depend at all on the
values of the fixed variates. The theory of partial and multiple correlation
discufsed in this section was originally developed by Karl Pearson (1896) for
three variables and eXiended by Yule (1897r, 1897b),
Let X be distributed according to N(p., I) (with I nonsingular). Let us
partition

(1) X
= (X(l))
X(2)

as before into q- and (p - q)-component subvectors, respectively. We shall

use the algebra developed in Section 2.4 here. The jOint density of y(1) = X(l)
- I 12 Iii X(2) and y(2) = X(2) is
n(y(l)1 p.(I) - I 12l:i21 p.(2) , III - I12 Iii I2dn(y<2)1 f.L(2), I 22 ),

The density of XCI) and X (2) then can be obtained from this expression by
substituting X(I) - I 12 Ii21 X(2) for y(l) and X(2) for y<2) (the Jacobian of this
transformation being 1); the resulting density of X(l) and X(2) is
{2)

-lil2[(X(I) - p.(l») - I 12 Iii(x(2) - p.(2»)]}

• I 1 exp[_1(x(2) _ p.(2))'I-1(x('2) _ p.(2»)],

(21T)"2(P-q)~ 2 22
 THE MULTIVAR(ATENORMAL DISTRIBUTION

where
(3)

This density must be n(xl j-L, I). The conditional density of X(I) given that
Xl:!) = Xl:!1 is the quotient of (2) and the marginal density of X(2) at the point
X(2). which is n(x(2)1 fJ.(2), I
22 ), the second factor of (2). The quotient is
(4)

f(xll)lx l :!)) = {q 1 exp( - H(x(l) - j-L(I)) - II2 I 221 (X(2) _ j-L(2))]'

(27T)· VIIII.21

.I 1/2 [( x(1) - j-L(I)) - I 12 I 2"21 (X(2) - j-L(2))1}.

It is understood that X(2) consists of p - q numbers. The density f(x(l)lx(2»
is a q-\ariate normal density with mean

say. and covariance matrix

It should be noted that the mean of X(I) given x(2) is simply a linear function
of Xl:!). and the covariance matrix of X(1) given X(2) does not depend on X(2)
at all.

Definition 2.5.1. The matrix P = I 12 I ii is the matrix of regression coef-

ficients of X(I) on x(2).

The element in the ith row and (k - q)th column of P= I 12 I2"i is often
denoted by

(7) f3,A q+I .... k-l.k+1.. ,p' i=l, ... ,q, k=q+l, ... ,p.

The vector fJ.(l) + p(X l2 ) - FJ}2) is called the regression function.

L~I 0'" 'I + 1. .,' be the i, jth element of I 11 . 2 • We call these partial
L'ouanances; all '1+ I. .f! is a partial variance.

Definition 2.5.2

P',q+I, .. p= .J .1 ' i,j=l, ... ,q,

yall 1/+1 . .. ,p y(Jj'.q+I •...• p

is the partial correlation between X, and X, holding Xq+ 1 " " , Xp fixed.
2.5 CONDITIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS; MULTIPLE CORRELATION 35

The numbering of the components of X is arbitrary and q is arbitrary.

Hence, the above serves to define the conditional distribution of any q
components of X given any other p - q components. In the case of partial
covariances and correlations the conditioning variables are indicated by the.
subscripts after the dot, and in the case of regression coefficients the
dependent variable is indicated by the first subscript, the relevant condition-
ing variable by the second subscript, and the other conditioning variables by
the subscripts after the dot. Further, the notation accommodates the condi-
tional distribution of any q variables conditional on any other r - q variables
(q ~ r 5',p).

Tbeor~m 2.5.1.Let the components of X be divided into two groups com-

posing the sub vectors X (I) and X(2), Suppose the mean j.L is similarly divided into
j.L(I) and j.L(2) , and suppose the covariance matrix I of X is divided into
I II' I 12' 1 22 , the covariance matrices of x(1), of X(I)and X(21, and of X(2l,
respectively. Then if the distribution of X is normal, the conditional distribution of
XCI) given X(2) = X(2) is normal with mean j.L(I) + I 12 I 221 (X(2) - j.L(2» and
covariance matrix I II - I 12 I 221 I 21 .

As an example of the above considerations let us consider the bivariate

normal distribution and find the conditional distribution of XI given X 2 = x 2 •
In this case j.L(I) = i-tl> j.L(2) = i-t2' III = al, 112 = a l a2 p, and I22 = al- Thus
the 1 X 1 matrix of regression coefficients is I 12 I 221 = alP I a2' and the
1 X 1 matrix of partial covariances is

(9) I lI . 2 = III - 1121221121 = a? - a,2alp2/al = a I2(1- p2).

The density of XI given X2 is n[xll i-tl + (al pi ( 2)(x2 - i-t2)' a?(1- p2)].
The mean of this conditional distribution increases with x 2 when p is
positive and decreases with increasing x 2 when p is negative. It may be
noted that when a l = a2, for example, the mean of the conditional distribu-
tion of XI does not increase relative to i-tl as much as x2 increases relative to
i-t2' [Galton (889) observed that the average heights of sons whose fathers'
heights were above average tended to be less than the fathers' he~ghts; he
called this effect "regression towards mediocrity."] The larger Ipi is, the
smaller the variance of the conditional distribution, that is, the more infor-
mation x 2 gives about x I' This is another reason for considering p a
measure of association between Xl and X 2 •
A geometrical interpretation of the theory is enlightening. The density
f(x l • x 2) can be thought of as a surface z = f(x I' x2) over the x It x2-plane. If
we inters~ct this surface with the plane x2 = c, we obtain a curve z = f(x I, c)
over the line X2 = c in the xl' x 2-plane. The ordinate of this curve is
36 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

proportional to the conditional density of XI given X2 .... c; that is, it is

proportional to the ordinate of the curve of a un!variate normal di~tribution.
In the mOre general case it is convenient to consider the ellipsoids of
constant density in the p-dimensional space. Then the surfaces of constant
density of f(x I .... ' xql cq+ I, ••. , c) are the intersections of the surfaces of
constant density of f(x I ' " ' ' XI) and the hyperplanes Xq+ 1 = C q + I ' ' ' ' , Xp =
cp ; these are again ellipsoids.
Further clarification of these ideas may be had by consideration of an
actual population which is idealized by a normal distribution. Consider, for
example, a population of father-son pairs. If the population is reasonably
homogeneous. the heights of falhers and the heights of corresponding SOns
have approximately a normal distribution (over a certain range). >\ condi-
tional distribution may be obtained by considering sons of all fat:ters whose
height is, say, 5 feet, 9 inches (to the accuracy of measurement); the heights
of these sons will have an approximate univariate normal distribution. The
mean of this normal distribution will differ from the mean of the heights of
sons whose fathers' heights are 5 feet, 4 inches, say, but the variances will be
about the same.
We could also consider triplets of observations, the height of a father,
height of the oldest son, and height of the next oldest son. The collection of
heights of two sons given that the fathers' heights are 5 feet, 9 inches is a
conditional distribution of two variables; the correlation between the heights
of oldest and next oldest sons is a partial correlation coefficient. Holding the
fathers' heights constant eliminates the effect of heredity from fathers;
however, One would expect that the partial correlation coefficient would be
positive, since the effect of mothers' heredity and environmental factors
would tend to cause brothers' heights to vary similarly.
As we have remarked above, any conditional distribution Obtained from a
normal distribution is normal with the mean a linear funt-tion ofthe variables
held fixed and the covariance matrix constant. In the case of nonnormal
distributions the conditional distribution of one set of variates OIl another
does not usually have these properties. However, one can construct nonnor-
mal distributions such that some conditional distributions have these proper-
ties. This can be done by taking as the density of X the product n[x(l) I Jl.(l) +
p(X(2) - Jl.(2», ~1I'2]f(x(2», where f(x(2) is an arbitrary density.

2.5.1. The Multiple Correlation Coefficient

We again crmsider X partitioned into X(l) and X(2). We shall study SOme
properties of px(2).
2.5 CONDITIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS; MULTIPLE CORRELATION 37

The uector X(I'2) = XCI) - jJ..(I) -

Definition 2.5.3. p(x(2) - jJ..(2» is the vec-
tOI of residuals of XCI) from its regression on x(2).

Theorem 2.5.2. The components of X(I'2) are unco"elated with the compo-
nents of X(2).

Proof The vector X(l'2) is y(1) - "y(l) in (25) of Section 2.4. •

Let u(i) be the ith row of I 12' and p(i) the ith row of 13 (i.e., p(i) =<
u(i)Iil). Let r(Z) be the variance of Z.

Theorem 2.5.3. For every vector ex

Proof By Theorem 2.5.2

(11) r( Xi - ex' X(2»)

= $ [ XI - 1-'1 - ex' (X(2) _ jJ..(2»)] 2

= $[ XP'2) _ J'X (l'2) + (p(.) _

I
ex )'(X(2) _ jJ..(2»)]2

= r[ XP'2)] + (P(I) - ex)'''( X(2) - jJ..(2»)( X(2) - jJ..(2»), (Pm - ex)

= r( X[I'2») + (P(l) - ex )'I 22 (P(i) - ex).

Since I22 is positive definite, the quadratic form in p(l) - ex is nonnegative

and attains it~ minimum of 0 at ex = PU)' •

Since "X(~'2) = 0, r(Xp-2» = "(X?·2»2. Thus IL; + p(i)(X(2) - jJ..(2») is the

best linear predictor of Xi in the sense that of all functions of X(2) of the form
a' X(2) + c, the mean squared errOr of the above is a minimum.

Theorem 2.5.4. For every vector ex

Proof. Since the correlation between two variables is unchanged when

either or both is multiplied by a positive COnstant, we can assume that
38 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

(13) CT. . - 2 $(Xj - MI)P(f)(X(2) -1J.(2») + r(p(I)X(2»)

~ OJ; 2 G( XI - M,) a' (X(2) - 1J.(2») + r( a 'X(2».

This leads to

$(X{ - Ml)P(,)(X(2) 1J.(2)) ~ $( Xi - MJa (X(2) - 1J.(2») .

l

(14)
J (J""l r(p(l)x(2») ..; Oii r( a X(2»
I
•
Definition 2.5.4. The maximum correlation between Xi and the linear com-
bination a X(2) is called the multiple correlation coefficient between Xi and X(2).
I

It follows that this is

(15)

A useful formula is

(16) 1

where Theorem A.3.2 of the Appendix has been applied to

(17)

Since
- I ~-[
(18) CT."q+ I .. . p - CT.l - 0'(1')":'22 O'U)'

it foHows that

(19)

This shows incidentally that any partial variance of a component of X cannot

be greater than the variance. In fact, the larger R,.q+ I .. ".p is. the greater the
2.5 CONDmONAL DISTRIBUTIONS; MULTIPLE CORRELATION 39

reduction in variance on going to the conditional distribution. This fact is

another reason for considering tl-te multiple correlation coefficient a meaSure
of association between Xi and X(2).
That 1J(/)X(2) is the best linear predictor of Xi and has the maximum
correlation between Xi and linear functions of X(2) depends only on the
covariance structure, without regard to normality. Even if X does not have a
normal distribution, the regression of X( I) on X(2) can be defined by
j.L(I) + I 12 I2iI (X(2) - j.L(, »; the residuals can be defined by Definition 2.5.3;
and partial covariances and correlations can be defined as the covariances
and correlations of residuals yielding (3) and (8). Then these quantities do
not necessarily have interpretations in terms of conditional distributions. In
the case of normality f..ti + 1J(i)(X(2) - j.L(2» is the conditional expectation of Xi
given X(2) :: X(2). Without regard to normality, Xi - S X i lx(2) is uncorrelated
with any function of X(2), SXi IX(2) minimizes S[Xi - h(X(2»]2 with respect
to functions h(X(2» of X(2), and S X i IX(2) maximizes the correlation between
Xi and functions of X(2). (See Problems 2.48 to 2.51.)

2.5.3. Some Formulas for Partial Correlations

We now consider relations between several conditional distributions o~tained
by holding several different sets of variates fixed. These relation::; are useful
because they enable us to compute one set of conditional parameters from
another s~t. A very special ca';e is

(20)

this follows from (8) when p = 3 and q = 2. We shall now find a generaliza-
tion of this result. The derivation is tedious, but is given here for complete-
ness.
Let

X(]) 1
(21) X= X(2) ,
(
X(3)

where X(I) is of PI components, X(2) of P2 components, and X (3) of P3

components. Suppose we have the conditional distribution of X(l) and X(2)
given X(3) = x(3); how do we find the conditional distribution of X(I) given
X(2) = x(2) and X(3) = x(3)? We use the fact that the conditional density of X(I)
40 THE MULTIVAR lATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

given X(2) = X(2) and X(3) = X(3) is

x(l)lx(2) x(~)) = f( x(I), X (2) , X (3»)

(22) f(
, f( X(2), X(3»)

= f(X(l), x(2), xO»)/f(x O »)

f( X(2), X(3») /f( X(3»)

= f( x(l), x(2)lx(3»)
f( x(2)lx(3»)

In tt.e case of normality the conditional covariance matrix of X(I) and X(2)
give!' X (3) =. X(3) is

(23) X<") 1~ (};I21II

<£f~X(2) x
(3)
};12) (};13) I33_I (:1;31
I22 - I I 32 )
23

~ (};1I.3 }; 123 )
I 21 .3 I 22 .3 '

say, where

(24) I
(};II
= I21
I12
I22
In
I 23
I31 I32 I33

The conditional covariance of X(I) given X(2) = x(2) and X(3) = X(3) is calcu-
lated from the conditional covariances of X(I) and X(2) given X(3) = X(3) as

This result permits the calculation of U,j'PI+I, ... ,p' i,j= 1 " " , P I ' frat
CTif .p I +p 2.' •• , p' i,j = 1, ... , PI + P2'
In particular, for PI = q, P2 = 1, and P3 = P - q - 1, we obtain

CTi.q+ l.q+2 ..... pCT).q+l.q+2 •... ,p

(26) CTij-q+l, ... ,p = a;rq+2, .... p -
CTq + I.q+ l·q+2 .... ,p

i,j= 1, ... ,q.

Since

(27) 0:.I/'q+ I , ... ,p = 0:I/'q+ 2 , .... P (1 - p~I,q+·q

I +2 ..... p ),
2.6 THE CW RACf'ERISTIC RJNCI10N; MOMENTS 41

we obtain

P,N+2 ..... p - P,.q+l·q+2" .. ,pPj.q+l·q+2.,."p

(28) Pfj'q+J .... ,p = y1- PI.q+l·q+2
2 ';1- Pj,q+I'q+2,
2 •
..... p .. ,p

This is a useful recursion formula to compute from (Pi) in succession

{Pr/'p}, (Prj'p-I, p}, ••• , PI2·3, ... , p'

2.6. THE CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTION; MOMENTS

2.6.1. The Characteristic Function

The characteristic function of a multivariate normal distribution has a form
similar to the density function. From the characteristic function, moments
and cumulants can be found easily.

Definition 2.6.1. The characteristic function of a random vector X is

(1) cP( I) = Seit'x

defined for every real vector I.

. To make this definition meaningful we need to define the expected value

of a complex-valued function of a random vector.

Definition 2.6.2. Let the complex-valued junction g(x) be written as g(x)

= gl("") + ig 2(x), where g,(x) and g2(X) are real-valued. Then the expected value
of g(X) is

(2)

In particurar, since ei8 :: cos 0 + i sin 0,

(3) Se1t'X = S cos t'X + is sin I'X.

To evaluate the characteristic function of a vector X, it is often convenient

to Use the following lemma:

Lemma 2.6.1. Let X' = (XU)I X (2) I). If X(I) and X(2) are independent and
g(x) = gO)(X(l»)l2)(x(2»), then

(4)
 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Proaf If g(x) is real-valued and X has a density,

If g(x) is complex-valued,

(6) g(x) = [g~I\X(l») + ig~I)(X(I))] [g\2)(x(2») +ig~2)(X(2»)]

= g\J)( x(l)) gF) (X(2») - g~l)( x(l)) g~2)( x(2))

+ i [g~I)( x(l)) g\2)( X(2») + g~ 1)( x(l») g~2) (x(2))] .

Then

(7) $g( X) = $[g~l)( X(l») gF)( X(2») - gil)( X(I») g~2)(X(2))]

+ i $ [g~J) (X(l») g\2)( X(2») + g~ 1)( X(I») g~2)( X(2») ]

= $g\1) ( X(l)) $gF)( X(2») - cC'gil )( X(l») -Sg~2)( X(2»)

+i[ $g~I)(x(l»)$gF)(X(2») + $g~I)(X(I))$g~2)(X(2))]

= [ cC' g~l)( XO») + i $ g~l) (X( 1»)][ cC' g\2)( X(2)) + i $g~2)( X(2))]

= $g(l)( X(I)) $ g(2)( X(2)). •

By applying Lemma 2.6.1 successively to g(X) = e'I'X, we derive

Lemma 2.6.2. If the components of X are mutually independent,

p
(8) $el/'X = TI $ei1r'(J.
j=1

We now find the characteristic function of a random vector with a normal

distribution.
2.6 THE CHARACTERISTIC FUNCfION; MOMENTS 43

Theorem 2.6.1. The chamcteristic function of X distributed according to

N(JI-,~) is

(9)

for every real vector I.

Proof From Corollary A1.6 of the Appendix we know there is a nonsingu~

lar matrix C such that

( 10)

Thus

(11)
Let

(12) X- JI-=CY.

Then Y is distributed according to N(O, O.

Now the characteristic function of Y is
p
( 13) I/I(u) = SelU'Y = n Se,uJYJ.
j=l

Since lj is distributed according to N(O, 1),

(14)

Thus

(15)
= e1t'u Se WCY
= elt'P,e- t<t'C)(t'C)'

for lie = u' ; the third equality is verified by writing both sides of it as
integrals. But this is

(16)
= elt p,- it '&'1
", 1 ''''

by (11). This proves the theorem. •

44 THE MULTrVAR[AT~NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The characteristic function of the normal distribution is very useful. For

example, we can use this method of proof to demonstrate the results of
Section 2.4. If Z = DX, then the characteristic function of Z is

(17)

= ell'(Dp.) it'{DID')t
,
which is the characteristic function of N(Dp., DItD') (by Theorem 2.6.0.
It is interesting to use the characteristic function to show that it is only the
multivariate normal distribution that has the property that every linear
combination of variates is normally distributed. Consider a vector Y of p
components with density f(y) and characteristic function

and suppose the mean of Y is p. and the covariance matrix is It. Suppose u'Y
is normally distributed for every u. Then the characteristic function of such
linear combination is

(19)

Now set t = 1. Since the right-hand side is then the characteristic function of
N(p., It), the result is proved (by Theorem 2.6.1 above and 2.6.3 below).

Theorem 2.6.2. If every linear combination of the components of a vector Y

is normally distributed, then Y is normally distributed.

It might be pointed out in passing that it is essential that every linear

combination be normally distributed for Theorem 2.6.2 to hold. For instance,
if Y = (YI' Y2 )' and YI and Y2 are not independent, then YI and Y2 can each
have a marginal normal distribution. An example is most easily given geomet-
rically. Let XI' X 2 have a joint normal distribution with means O. Move the
same mass in Figure 2.1 from rectangle A to C and from B to D. It will be
seen that the resulting distribution of Y is such that the marginal distribu-
tions of YI and Y2 are the same as XI and X 2 , respectively, which are
normal, and yet the jOint distribution of Y I and Y 2 is not normal.
This example can be used a]so to demonstrate that two variables, YI and
Y2' can be uncorrelated and the marginal distribution of each may be normal,
2.6 THE CHARACfERISTICFUNCTION; MOMENTS 4S

Figure 2.1

but the pair need not have a joint normal distribution and need not be
independent. This is done by choosing the rectangles so that for the resultant
distribution the expected value of Y1Y2 is zero. It is clear geometrically that
ibis can be done.
For future refeJence we state two useful theorems concerning characteris-
tlC functions.

Theorem 2.6.3. If the random vector X has the density f(x) and the
characteristic function eP(t), then

1 00 00 ,
(20) f{x) = p f ... fe-It XeP{t) dt l ... dt p •
(21T) -00 -00

This shows that the characteristic function determines the density function
uniquely. If X does not have a density, the characteristic function uniquely
defines the probability of any continuity interval. In the univariate case a
·continuity interval is an interval such that the cdf does nOt have a discontinu-
ity at an endpoint of the interval.

. Theorem 2.6.4. Let {~(x)} be a sequence of cdfs; and let {eP/t)} be the
~equence of co"esponding characteristic functions. A necessary and sufficient
condition for ~(x) to converge to a cdf F(x) is that, for every t, ePj(t) converges
to a limit eP(t) that is continuous at t ... O. When this condition is satisfied, the
limit eP(t) is identical with the characteristic function of the limiting distribution
F(x).

For the proofs of these two theorems, the reader is referred to Cramer
1(1946), Sections 10.6 and 10.7.
46 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

2.6.2. The Moments and eumulants

The moments of X I' ..• , X p with a joint normal distributiOn can be obtained
from the characteristic function (9). The mean is

(21)

= } {- z;: (Th/) + il'h }cP( t)

J t-O

= I'h'
The second moment is

(22)

1 {(- [(Thktk+il'hH - L(Tk/k+il'l) -(Thj}cP(t)

k 'k t-O

(Th) + I'h I'j'

Thus
2
(23) Variance( Xi) = C( X 1 - I'J = (Til'

(24) Covariance(X X}) = C(Xj - I'j)(X} - I'j) = (TIl'

"
Any third moment about the mean is

(25)

The fourth moment about the mean is

Every moment of odd order is O.

Definition 2.6.3. If all the moments of a distribution exist, then the cumu-
lants are the coefficients K in '

(27)
2.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 47

In the case of the multivariate normal distribution K 10 ••• 0 = JL I" •• , KO'" 01

= JL p ' K 20"'0 = 0'"11"'" K O .•. 02 = O'"pp, K IIO "' O = 0'"12' •••• The cumulants for
which LSi> 2 are O.

2.7. ELliPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

2.7.1. Spherically and Elliptically Contoured Distributions

It was noted at the end of Section 2.3 that the density of the multivariate
normal distribution with mean f.L and covariance matrix I is cOnstant On
concentric ellipsoids

(1)

A general class of distributions .vith this property is the class of elliptically

contoured distributions with density

(2)

where A is a positive definite matrix, g(.) ~ 0, and

(3)

If C is a nonsingular matrix such that C' A -I C = I, the transformation

x - v = Cy carries the density (2) to the density g(y' y). The contours of
constant density of g(y' y) are spheres centered at the origin. The class of
such densities is known as the spherically contoured distributions. Elliptically
contoured distributions do not necessarily have densities, but in this exposi-
tion only distributions witiJ densities will be treated for statistical inference.
A spherically contoured density can be expressed in polar coordinates by
the transformation

(4) YI = r sin 8 p

h = rcos 01 sin 8 2 ,
Y3 = r cos 8 1 cos 82 sin 83 ,

Yp_1 = r cos 8 1 cos 8 2 ... cos 8p - 2 sin 8p-2'

Yp = r cos 8 1 cos 8 2 ... cos 8p - 2 cos 8p _ 1 ,
48 THE MULTIVARIA'TENORMAL. DISTRIBUTION

where ~7r<8.5i7r~ i=1, ... ,p-2, -7r<Op_I::;'7r, and O~,<oo.

Note that y'y = ,2. The Jacobian of the transformation (4) is
3
,p-I COSP- 2 01 COsp- 8 ··.cosOp_ ' See Problem 7.1. If g(yly) is the density
2 2
of Y, then the density of R, 0 1, ... , 0 P _I is

(5)

Note that R, 0 1" " , 0 p _ L are independently distributed. Since

(6)

(Problcm 7.2), the marginal JCLlsily or R is

(7)

where

(8)

The margillal density of 0. is rti(p - i)]cos P -' 18/{rq)r(t(p - i - l)]},

i = 1, ... , p - 2, and of 8p _ 1 is 1/(27r).
In the normal case of N(O, I) the density of Y is

and the density of R =(y'y)i is ,p-l exp( !r 2 )/(2 W-- 1 reW)]. The density
of r2 = v is u~-le- tU/(2 iP r<W)]. This is the x2-density with p degrees of
freedom.
The COnstant C( p) is the surface area of a sphere of unit radius in p
dimensions. The random vector U with coordinates sin 0 1, cos 0 1 sin O2 ,,,,,
cos 0 1 cos O 2 ... cos 0 p - 1 ' where 0 1"", 0p-1 are independently distributed
each with the uniform distribution over (- 7r/2, 7r/2) except for 0 p _ 1 having
the uniform distribution over ( - 7r, 7r), is said to be uniformly distributed on
the unit sphere. (This is the simplest example of a spherically contoureq,.
distribution not having a density.) A stochastic representation of Y with thl
2.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 49

density g(y' y) is
d
(9) Y=RU,

where R has the density (7).

Since each of the densities of ®I' ... , ®p- I a re even,

~1O) SU=O.

Because R anJ U are independent,

(11) Sy=o

if S R < 00. Further,

( 12)

if rfR2 < 00. By symmetry SU? = ... = SU/ = lip because r.f_IU,2 = 1.
Again by symmetry SUI U2 = SUI U 3 = ... = SUp_ l Up. In particular SU1U2
= rf sin 0, cos 0, sin 02' the integrand of which is an odd function of 8, and
° *"
of 2 , Hence, Su.~ = 0, i j. To summarize,

(13) SUU' = (llp)lp

and

(14)

(if S R2 < 00).

The distinguishing characteristic of the class of spherically contoured
distributions is that OY 4. Y for every orthogonal matrix O.

Theorem 2.7.1. If Y has the density g(y' y), then Z = OY, where 0'0 = I,
has the density g(z' z).

( Proof. The transformation Z= Oy has Jacobian 1. •

We shall extend the definition of Y being spherically contoured to any

distribution with the property OY f1: Y.

Corollary 2.7.1. If Y is spherically contoured with stochastic representation

Y f1: RU with R2 = Y'Y, then U is spherically contoured.

Proof. If Z = OY and hen ~e Z f1: Y, and Z has the stochastic representa-

tion Z = SV, where S2 = Z'2. then S = R and V= OU f1: U. •
so THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The density of X = v + CY IS (2). From (11) and (I4) we derive the

following theorem:

Theorem 2.7.2. If X has the density (2) and $ R2 < 00,

(15) $ X = j.L = 1', $(X) = $( X - j.L)(X - j.L)' = I = (ljp) $R2A.

In fact if $Rm < 00, a moment of X of order h (:s; m) is $(X1 - #J.l)h l .. ,
(XP""'P
- I I )hp = $ZhI 1 . . . ZhP p $Rhj$( X2)th
p'
where Z has the distributioc.
N( 0, I) and h =: hI + ... + hp'

Theorem 2.7.3. If X has the density (2), $R2 < 00, and f[c$(X)] ==
f[$(X)] for all c > 0, then f[$(X)] = f(I).
In particular PI}(X) = u i / yul/Oj) = AI/ AiA}j' where I = (Uii ) and A =
(AI) ).

2.7.2. Distributions of Linear Combinations; Marginal Distributions

First we consider a spherically contoured distribution with density g(y' y).
Let y' (Y'I' y~), where YI and Y2 have q and p - q components, respec-
tively. The marginal density of Y2 is

(16)

Express YI in po~ar coordinates (4) with r replaced by r l and p replaced by

q. Then the marginal density of Y2 is

co
(17) g2(Y;Y2) = C(q) 10 g(rr + Y~Y2)rrl drl'

This expression shows that the marginal distribution of Y2 has a density

which is sphcrically contoured .
. Now consider a vector X' = (X(I)/, X(2)') with density (2). If $R2 <; 00,
the covariance matrix of X is (I5) partitioned as (14) of Section 2.4.
Let Z(l) =X(l) - I 121 22IX (2) =X(I) - A 12 A 22IX(2), Z(2) = X (2), T(l) =
v(ll I 12 I 221 v(2) = v(l) - A 12 A 2d v (2) , T(2) = v(2l. Then the density of Z I =
(Z(I) / , Z(2),) is

(18) I A Il'2 1 -!1 A 221- tg [( Z(\) - T(l))' A U'2( Z(I) ~ T(I))

+ (Z(2) v(2)), A' 22( Z{2) - v(2))}.
2.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 51

Note that Z(I) and Z(Z) are uncorrclatc<.l even though possibly dependent.
Let C1 and Cz be q X q and (p - q) X (p - q) matrices satisfying C 1 A 11.zC~
zz C'Z = I p -q' Define y(l) and y(Z) by z(J) - T(l) C1yO) and
= I q and CZ A -J
z(Z) - v(Z) = C y(2). Then y(1) and y(2) have the density g(y(l)' y(1) + y(Z), y(2)).
z
The marginal density of y(Z) is (17), and the marginal density of X(Z) = Z(Z) is

The moments of Yz can be calculated from the moments of Y.

The generalization of Theorem 2.4.1 to elliptically contoured distributions
is the following: Let X with p components have the density (2). Then Y = ex
has the density ICAC'I- !g[(x - Cv)'(CAC/)-l(X - Cv)] for C nonsingular.
The generalization of Theorem 2.4.4 is the following: If X has the density
(2), then Z = DX has the density

where D is a q Xp matrix of rank q 5.p and gz is given by (17).

We can also characterize marginal Jistributions in terms of the represen-
tation (9). Consider

(21) Y(l)) d ( U(I) )

Y = ( y(2) = RU = R U(2) ,

where y(l) and U(I) have q components and y(Z) and U(Z) have p - q
components. Then R~ = y(2)'y(2) has the distribution of R ZU(Z)!U(2), and

(2) 'U(2) = U(2)' U(2) 4. y(Z) , y(Z)

(22) U U' U ---=y=,y=-- •

In the cuse y.- N(O, Ip), (22) has the beta distribution, say B(p - q, q), with
density

(23) r{p/2) zi(p-q)-l{l _Z)~q-I Oszsl.

f(q/2)f[(p - q)/2] ,

Hence, in general,

(24)
where R~ £ R 2 b, b '" B( p ~ q, q), V has the uniform distributiun of v'v = 1
in P2 dimensions, and R2, b, and V are independent. All marginal distribu-
tions are elliptically contoured.-

2.7.3. Conditional Distributions and Multiple Correlation Coefficient

The density of the conditional distribution of Yl given Y2 when Y = (ip Y;)'
has the spherical density g(y I y) is

g(ilYl + Y;Y2) g(y'lYI +ri)

(25)
g2(Y;Y2) - g2(ri)

where the marginal density g2(Y;Y2) is given by (17) and ri = Y;Y2. In terms
of Y I' (25) is a spherically contoured distribution (depending on ri).
Now consider X = (X~, X;)' with density (2). The conditional density of
X(l) given X(2) = X(2) is {
..~~
(26)
1 A 11.2 1 - ig{[ (X(I) - ..... (1))' - (X(2) - V(2))' B'] A 111.2 [ x(l) - ..... (1) - B(x(2) - ..... (2))]

+ (X(2) - ..... (2)), A;i (X(2) _ ..... (2))}

"!- g2[ (X(2) - ..... (2)), A 24 (X(2) - v(2))]

= 1 A 11 0
2 1 - tg{[x(t) - v(t) - B(X(2) - v(2))], A1}.2[x(l) - ..... (1) - B(X(2) - ,,(2))] + ri}
-,:-g2(r1),

where ri = (X(2) ~ ..... (2)), A ;i(X(2) - ..... (2)) and B = A 12 A 21. The density (26) is
elliptically contoured in X(I) - ..... (1) - B( X(2) - ..... (2)) as a function of x(l). The
conditional mean of X(I) given X(2) =X(2) is

(27)

if S(RfIY;Y2 = ri} < co in (25), where Rf = Y{Y1• Also the conditional covari-
ance matrix is (S ri / q) All -2. It follows that Definition 2.5.2 of the partial
correlation coefficient holds when (Uijoq+I,0 .. ,p)=I lI . 2 =II! +IIZI2"lI21
and I is the parameter matrix given above.
Theorems 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 ar~ true for any elliptically contoured
distribution for which S R2 < 00.

2.7.4. The Characteristic Function; Moments

The characteristic function of a random vector Y with a spherically con-
toured distribution Seil'Y has the property of invariance over orthogonal
2.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS S3

transformations, that is,

(28)

where Z = Of also has the density g(y' y). The equality (28) for all orthogo-
nal 0 implies Gell'z is a function of 1'1. We write

(29) Ge1t'Y == ¢(/'/).

Then for X == fJ. + CY

(30)
= ellfL¢( t'CC't)
=ell'fL¢(t' At)
when A = ce'. Conversely, any characteristic function of the form
eit'fL¢(t' At) corresponding to a density corresponds to a random vector X
with the density (2).
The moments of X with an elliptically contoured distribution can be
found from the characteristic function e1t'fL¢(t ''It) or from the representa-
tion X = fJ. + RCU, where C' A -IC = I. Note that
,}
..
co
(31) GR2=C(p)1 r P+ 1 g(r 2)dr= -2p¢'(0),
o

(32) GR 4 = C(p) fco rP + 3g ( r2) dr = 4p( p + 2) ¢" (0).

o
r Consider the higher~order moments of f = RU. The odd-order moments

Oi Rare 0, and hence the odd-order moments of fare O.

We have

(33)

In fact, all moments of X - fJ. of odd order are O.

Consider G~~UkUI' Because U'U = 1,
P
(34) 1 ... L GU/~2 == P GU14 + p( P - 1) GU12Ul.
i,j-.!
S4 THE MULTI V AR I ATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Integration of $ sino! e t gives $U t4 = 3/[ p{ p + 2)]; then (34) implies

$U t:U22 = l/[p(p + 2)]. Hence $y,4 = 3$R 4 /[p(p + 2)] and $y?y22 =
$R 4 /[p(p+2)]. Unless i=j=k=l or i=j:l=k=l or i=k:l=j=l or
i = 1:1= j = k. we Iwve $U,U)Uj.UI = O. To summarize $UPjUkUI = (8 ij 8 kl +
8,1. 8;1 + D,ID)k.)/[p(p + 2)]. The fourth-order moments of X are

(35) $( X, - I-t,)( X) - I-tJ( XI. - I-td( XI - I-tl)

$R 4
= p( P + 2) (A'}"\kl + A,k Ajl + AifAjd

$R 4 p
= ~ - +2 (a"eTkI + a,l<, a)1 + ui/Uj,d·
($ R2 r p

The fourth cumulant of the ith component of X standardized by its

standard deviation is

3$R~ _ 3( $R2)2
p( P + 2) P

(~:1r
= 3K,

say. This is known as the kurtosis. {Note that K is t ${{ XI - I-tY /

[$(X, - I-tyn -1J The standardized fourth cumulant is 3K for every
component of X. The fourt'l cumulant of XI' X;, X k , and XI is

(37)
K"I.'= $( X,- M,)(X) - 1-t))(XI. - I-tI.)(X,- I-tl) - (U"Ukl + U1kOjI+ ut/Ojd

For the normal distribution K = O. The fourth-order moments can be written

( 38)

More detail about elliptically contoured distributions can be found in Fang

and Zhang (1990).
2.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 55

The class of elliptically contoured distributions generalizes the normal

distribution, introducing more flexibility; the kurtosis is not required to be O.
The typical "bell-shaped surface" of IA I - ~ g[( x - v)' A -I (x - v)] can be
more or less peaked than in the case of the normal distribution. in the next
subsection some eXqn1ples are given.

2.7.5. Examples
(1) The multivariate t-distribution. Suppose Z '" N(O, Ip), ms 2 £ X~, and Z
and S2 are independent. Define Y= (l/s)Z. Then the density of Y is

(39)

and

(40)

If X = j.L + CY, the density 0'· X i!S

( 41)

(2) Contaminated normal. The contaminated normal distribution is a mix-

ture of two normal distributions with proportional covariance matrices and
the same mean vector. The density can be written

(42)

+.... ] (,-(1/2<)(X-fL)'I\-I(X-fL)
. (27T)1'/2IcAI~ ,

where c> 0 and 0 ~ e ~ 1. Usually e is rather small and c rather large.

(3) Mixtures of Ilormal distributions. Let w( v) be a cumulative distribution
function over 0 ~ v ~ 00. Then a mixture of normal densities is defined by

(43)
56 THE MULTIVARIATENORMAL mSTRIBUTION

which is an elliptically contoured density. The random vector X with this

density has a representation X"", wZ, where z,.." N(JL,~) and w,.." w(w) are
independent.
Fang, Kotz, and Ng (1990) have discussed (43) and have given other
examples of elliptically c(,ntoured distributions.

PROBLEMS

2.1. (Sec. 2.2) Letf(x,y) 1,O.s;xsl,Osysl,

= 0, otherwise.
Find:

(a) F(x, y).

(b) F(x).
(c) f(x).
() if f(xo. Yo)
(d) f(xly). [Note: f(Xolyo) = 0.]
(e) ,J;'X"Y"'.
(f) Prove X and Yare independent.

2.2. (Sec. 2.2) Let f(x,y) 2,0 sy sx s 1,

n, othcrwif;c.

Find:

(a) F(x, yJ. (tj f(xly).

(b) F(x). (g) f(ylx).
(c) f(x). (h) C x"ym.
(d) G(y). (D Are X and Y independent']
(e) g(y).

2.3. (Sec. 2.2) Let f(x, y) C for x 2 + y2 S k'l and 0 elsewhere. Prove C =
1/(1rk 2), <boX $Y=O, $X 2 = <.~y2=k2/4. and $XY O. Are X and Y
tndeprrdent']

2.4. (Sec. 2.Ll Let F(x 1• X2) be the joint cuf of Xl' X 2 , and let F,,(xJ be the
marginal cdf of XI' i 1,2. Prove that if f~(Xi) is continuous, i = 1,2, then
F(xt, t z) is continuous.

2.5. (Sc.c. 2.2) Show that if the set X(, ... , X, is independent of the set
X,+I!'''' Xp. then
lOBLEMS 57

~.6. (Sec. 23) Sketch the ellipsl!s f( x, y) = 0.06, where f(x, y) is the bivariate
normal density with

(a) /-Lx = 1, /-Ly = 2, a/ = 1, a/ = 1, Pxy = O.

(b) /-Lx = 0, /-L y = 0, a/ = 1, a/ == 1, Pxy = O.
(c) /-Lx = 0, /-Ly = 0, a/ = 1, a/ = 1, Pxy = 0.2
(d) /-Lx = 0, /-Ly = 0, a/ = 1, a/ = 1, Pxy = 0.8.
(e) /-Lx = 0, /-Ly = 0, a/ = 4, a/ = 1, PJ.y = 0.8.

2.7. (Sec. 2.3) Find b and A so that the following densities can be written in the
form of (23). Also find /-Lx. /-Ly' ax. a.l • and Pxy'
,

(a) 217Texp( - H(x _1)2 + (y - 2)2]).

1
(b) 2A7T (X2/4 - 1.6.ly/2
exp - 0.72
+ i) .

(d) 2~ exp[ - ~(2X2 + y2 + 2xy - 22x - 14 y + 65)].

2.8. (Sec. 2.3) For each matrix A in Problem 2.7 find .C so that C'AC = I.

2.9. (Sec. 23) Let b = O.

(a) Write the density (23).

(b) Find :t.

2.10. (Sec. 2.3) Prove that the principal axes of (55) of Section 23 are along the 45°
and 135° lines with lengths 2y'c(1+p) and 2Vc(1-p), respectively. by
transforming according to Yl =(Zl +z2)/fi'Y2=(ZI -z2)/fi.

2.U. (Sec. 2.3) Suppose the scalar random variables Xl"'" Xn are independent
and have a density which is a function only of xt
+ ... +x~. Prove that the Xi
are normally distributed with mean 0 and common variance. Indicate the
mildest conditions on the density for your proof.
58 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

2.l2. (SeC. 2.3) Show that if Pr{X ~ 0, y ~ O} = a fOJ the distribution

tht:n P = cos( I - 20' hr. [Hint: Let X = U, Y = pU + ~ V and verify p =

cos 21T(-I -a) geometrically.]

2.13. (Sec. 2.3) Prove that if Pi; = p, i"* j, i, j = 1, ... , p, then p ~ - 1/(p - 1).

COllcelltration ellipsoid. Let the density of the p-component Y be

2.1-1. (Sec. 2.3)
f(y)=f(w+ J)/[(p+2)1T]~P for y'y:5.p+2 and 0 elsewhere. Then $Y=O
and "IT' =I
(Problem 7.4). From this result prove that if the density of X is
g(x) = M f(!p + U/[(p + 2)1T ]~P for (x - .... )' A(x - .... ):5.p + 2 and 0 else-
where. then (f.'X= .... and (g'(X- .... )(X- .... ), =A- 1•

2.15. (Sec. 2.4) Show that when X is normally distributed the components are
mutually independent if and only if the covariance matrix is diagonal.

2.16. (Sec. 2.4) Find necessary and sufficient conditions on A so that AY + A has a
continuous cdf.

2.17. (Sec. 2.4) Which densities in Problem 2.7 define distributions in which X and
Yare independent?

2.18. (Sec. 2.4)

(a) Writc the marginal density of X for each case in Problem 2.6.
(b) Indicate the marginal distribution of X for each case in Problem 2.7 by th(.
notation N(a. b).
(cl Write the marginal densitY of XI and X" in Problem 2.9.

2.19. (S\:c. 2.4) What is the distribution or Z = X - Y whcn X and Y have each of
the densities in Problem 2.6?

2.20. (Sec. 2.4) What is the distribution of XI + 2X 2 - 3X3 when X" X 2 , X3 halje
the distribution defined in Problem 2.97

2.21. (Sec. 2.4) Let X = (XI' X~)'. where XI = X and X 2 = aX + b and X has the
distribution N(O,1). Find the cdf of X.

2.22. (Sec. 2.4) Let XI" ." X N be independently distributed, each according to
lV( /J-. u J).

(a) What is the distribution of X=(XI' ... ,XN )'? Find the vector of means
and the covariance matrix.
(b) U~ing Theorem 2.4.4, find the marginal distribution of X = LXiiN.
PROBLEMS 59

2.23. (Sec. 2.4) Let XI' ... ' X N be independently distributed with X, having distri-
bution N( f3 + ')'Zj, (]"2), where ~i is a given number, i = 1, ... , N, and EiZ; = O.

(a) Find the distribution of(Xw .. ,XN )'.

(b) Find the distribution of X and g = EXiZ.!Ez,z for Ez,z > o.

2.24. (Sec. 2.4) Let (XI' Y I )',(X2 , YZ)',(X3, Y3)' be independently distributed,
(X" Y,)' according to

i = 1,2,3.

(a) Find the distribution of the six variables.

(b) Find the distribution of (X, Y)'.

2.25. (Sec. 2.4) Let X have a (singular) normal distribution with mean 0 and
covariance matrix

(a) Prove I is of rank 1.

(b) Find a so X = a'Y and Y has a nonsingular normal distribution, and give
the density of Y.

2.26. (Sec. 2.4) Let

-1

-3
5
-il
*"
(a) Find a vector u 0 so that l:u = O. [Hint: Take cofactors of any column.]
(b) Show that any matrix of the form G = (H u), where H is 3 X 2, has the
property

(c) Using (a) and (b), find B to satisfy (36).

(d) Find B- 1 and partition according to (39).
(e) Verify that CC' = I.

2.27. (Sec. 2.4) Prove that if the joint (marginat) distribution of XI and X z is
singular (that is, degenerate), then the joint distribution of XI' X z, and X3 is
Singular.
60 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

2.28. (Sec. 25) In cach part of Prohlcm 2.6, find the conditional distribution of X
givcn Y = Y. find the conditional distribution of Y given X =x, and plot each
regr..:)\~'ion linc on Ihe appr6priulc graph in Problem 2.6.

2.29. (Sec. 25) Let J-t = 0 and

1. 0.80 -0.401
~= O.HO I. -0.56 .
( -0.40 -0.56 1.

(a) Find the conditional distribution of Xl and X J , given Xl. = xz'

(b) What is the partial correlation between Xl and X3 given X 2?

2.30. (Sec. 2.5) In Problem 2.9, find the conditional distribution of Xj and X 2 given
XJ =X3'

2.31. (Sec. 2.5) Verify (20) directly from Theorem L.S.I.

2.3:'.. (Sec. 2.5)

(a) Show thal finding 0: to maximize the absolute value of the correlation
hctween X, Hnd ex' Xl~l i.; cqlliv!liem to maximizing (0':,)0:)1 subject to
o:'l:22O: con~lanl.
(b) Find 0: by maximizing (0';,)0:)2 - ",(0: I ~22 0: - c), where c is a COnstant and
..\ is a Lagrange multiplier. i
- ,.
2.33. (Sec. 2.5) lnlJariallce of the mulliple correia lion coeffiCient. Prove that R j • q + I, .•• , p
is an invariant characteristic of the multivariate normal distribution of Xi and
X ll.) under the transformation x*I = b·" x· +I
c· for b·I .. 0 and X(2)* = HX(2) + k
fOr H nonsingular and th::.! every function of J-tj, O'ji' O'(f)' IJ,l2), and I22 that is
invariant is a function of R i . q + 1..... po

2.34. (Sec. 2.5) Prove that

k.j=q + 1, ... ,p.

2.35. (Sec. 2.5) Find the multiple correlation coefficient between Xl and (X 2 , X 3 )
in Problem 2.29.

2.36. (Sec. 2.5) Prove explicitly thut it' I is positive definite.

fPROBLEMS 61

2...J7. (Sec. 2.S) Prove Ha(il.lmard.'s inequality

[Hint: Using Problem 2.36, prove III $ 0'111I 22 1, where :t22 is (p -1) X
(p - 1), and apply induction.]

2.38. (Sec. 25) Prove equality holds in Problem 2.37 if and only if :t is diagonal.

2.39. (Sec.2.S) Prove {312'3 = 0'12'3/0'22'3 = PI3.20'1.2/0'3<2 and {313'2 = 0'13.2/0'33<2 =

PI3.2 0'1'2/0'3.2' where O'?k O'i/.k·

2.40. (Sec. 2.5) Let (Xl' X 2 ) have the density n (xl 0, ~) = !(x h X 2 ) .. Let the density
of X 2 given XI ;:::x 1 be !(x2 Ix t ). Let the joint density of XI' X 2 , X3 be
!(xl>x 2 )!(x3 Ix). Find the covariance matrix of X I,X2,X3 and the partial
correlation between X2. and X 3 for given X I'

2.41. (Sec. 2.S) Prove 1 - "Rr'23 = (1 - pt3X1 - Pf203)' [Hint: Use the fact that the
variance of XI' in the conditional distribution given X 2 and X3 is (1- Rf'23) 0'11']

2.42. (Sec. 25) If P = 2, c~n there be a difference between the simple correlation
between Xl and X z and the multiple correlation between XI and X(2) = X 2?
Explain.

2.43. (Sec. 2.5) Prove

O"ik·q-l ..... k-I.k+ I •.. .• p

{3ik.q+I •...• k-l.k+I .... ,p = O'kk k
·q+I .... ,k-I. +!, ... ,p

O'i'q+ I , ... ,k-I ,k+ I, ... ,p

= Pfk.q-I,. ... k-l,k+I, ..•• p O'k '
·q+l ..... k-I.k+l ..... p

1 .. 1, ... , q, q + 1, •.. , p, where O'/q + I ..... k _ I. k + I ••..• P =

k >=.

j = t, k. [Hint: Prove this for the special case k =q + 1

OJ'j'q+l • ... ,k-I. k+l, ... ,p'
• by using Problem 2.56 with PI - q. pz = 1, P3 = P - q - 1.]
"

l44. (Sec. 2.5) Give a necessary and sufficient condition for Ri •q + l ..... p:: 0 in terms
If of O'(.q+I>'''' O'ip.

Z.45. (Sec. 2.S) Show

1-R?l·q+I ..... p =(1_p2)(1-pf

Ip I,p-I'p ) ... (1-p.2
l.q-l·q+2 ..... p ) •

[Hint; Use (19) and (27) successively.]

62 THE MULTI VARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTICN

2.46. (Sec. 2.5) Show

"J
Ptj.q+I ..... p = (3i/.q+I. .... p{3j,.q+I .... ,p·
2.47. ~Set:. 2.5) Prove

[Hint: Apply Theorem A.3.2 of the Appendix to the cofactors used to calculate
(T Ij.]

2.48. (Sec. 2.5) Show that for any joint distribution for which the expectations exi.;;t
and any function h(x(2)) that

[Hillt: In the above take the expectation first with respect to Xi conditional
all X( 2).]

2.49. (Sec. 2.5) Show that for any function h(X(2)) and any joint distribution of Xl
and X(2) for which the relevant expectations exist, .8'[Xi - h(X(2))]2 = 4[Xi -
g(X(2))]2 + 4[g(X(2)) - h(X(2))]2, where g(X(2)) = 4Xi lx(2) is the conditional
expectation of Xi given X(2) = X(2). Hence g(X(2)) minimizes the mean squared
error of prediction. [Hint: Use Problem 2.48.]

2.50. (Sec. 2.5) Show that for any fUnction h(X(2) and any joint distribution of Xl
and X(2) for which the relevant expectations exist, the correlation between Xi
and h(X(2)) is not greater than the correlation between and g(X(2)), where x,.
g(X(2)) = 4Xi lx(2).

2.51 .. (Sec. 2.5) Show that for any vector functicn h(X(2))

J [X(l) - h(X(2)] [X(I) - :z( X(2)], - 4[X(I) - C X(l)IX(2)][ X (I) - 4 X(l)]X(2)],

is positive semidefinite. Note this generalizes Theorem 2.5.3 and Problem 2.49.

2.52. (Sec. 25) Verify that I 12I;-2! = _'I'~!I '1'12' where 'I' = I-I is partitioned
similarly to I.

2.53. (Sec. 2.5) Show

=(00 0) +
I;-21 (I)
-13' Ill.2(I -I -13),

where 13 = I 12 I;-r [Hint: Use Theorem A.3.3 of the Appendix and the fact
that I -I is symmetric.]
PROBLEMS 63

2.54. (Sec. 2.5) Use Problem 2.53 to show that

2.55. (Sec. 2.5) Show

G(X(l)IX~2), x(3») = ....(1) + I 13 I 331( X(3) (3»)
_ ....

+ (I 12 - I I 331I32)(I22 - I 23 I 331I32f I
13

.[ X(2) - ....(2) _ I23 I 331( X(3) _ ....(3»)].

2.56. (Sec. 2.5) Prove by matrix algebra that

I22 I23)-I(I21) -I
III-(II2 I 13) ( I32 I33 I31 =I ll -II3 I 33 I 31

- (I 12 - I 13I331 I32)(I22 - I 23 I 331I32) -I( I21 - I23I331 I 31 ).

2.57. (Sec. 2.5) Inuariance of the partial correlation coefficient. Prove that PI2-3 ..... p is
invariant under the transformations xi = ajx j + b;X(3) + cj • a j > 0, i = 1,2, X(3)*
= ex(3) + d, where X(3) = (x 3 , ••. , x p )', and that any function of .... and I that is
invariant under these transformations is a function of PI2-3." .• p'

2.58. (Sec. 2.5) Suppose X P ) and X(2) of q and p - q components, respectively,

have the density

where
Q = ( X(I) - ....(1»). A II( X(I) - ....(1») + ( x(l) - .... (1»). A 12( x(2) (2»)
_ ....

+ (X(2) - (2»), A21 ( x(l) -

.... .... (1») + (X(2) - ....(2»). A 22 ( X(2) _ .... (2»).
Show that Q can be written as QI + Q2' where
QI = [(x(l) - ....(1») +All~Alz(x(2) - ....(2»)]'A I1 [(x(l) - ....(1») +AIIIAI2(x(2) - ....(2»)}
Q 2 = (X(2) - (2»),( A22 -
.... A21A l/A 12)( x(2) - (2»).
....

Show that the marginal density of X(2) is

IA22-A21Aii1A121t
~=-~~~-=-e
_!Q
2 2
(27r)~(p-q)

Show that the conditional density of X(I) given X(2) = X(2) is

(without using the Appendix). This problem is meant to furnish an alternative

proof of Theorems 2.4.3 and 2.5.1.
64 THE MULTIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTIl

2.59. (Sec. 2.6) Prove Lemma 2.6.2 in detail. Q

2.60. (Sec. 2.6) Let f be distributed according to N(O, X). Differentiating the
characteristic function, verify (25) and (26).

2.61. (Sec. 2.6) Verify (25) and (26) by using the transformation X - fL:;:a CY, where
X = CC', and integrating the density of f.

2.62. (Sec. 2.6) Let the density of(X, Y) be

2n(xIO,1)n(yIO,1), O~y:sx<co, O:s-x~y<co,

O~ -y~ -x<co, O:sxs -y<oc,

o otherwise.

Show that X. Y, X + Y, X - Y each have a marginal normal distribat;on.

2.63. (Sec. 2.6) Suppose X is distributed according to N(O, X). Let X = «(1 l> ••• , (1p)'
Prove

(11(1'1

G ( XX' ® XX J) = X ® X + vec X (vec X)' + : t

[
(11(1p

= (I + K)(X ® X) + vec X (vec X)',

where

£1.£11

K= :
[
£1£~

and £i is a column vector with 1 in the ith position and O's elsewhere.

2.64. Complex normal distribution. Let ex', f')' have a normal distribution with mean
vector (!ix, !iy)' and covariance matrix

X= (~ -~)
r '
where r is positive definite and ~ = - ~t (skew symmetric). Then Z =X + if
is said to have a complex normal distribution with mean 6 -ILx+ i.... y and
covariance matrix G(Z - 6 )(Z - 6)* = P = Q + iR, where z* = XI - ifI• Note
that P is Hermitian and positive definite.

(a) Show Q = 2r and R = 2~.

(b) St.ow IPI 2 ::; 12XI. [Hint: Ir+ i~1 = Ir- i~I.]
PROBLEMS 6S

(c) Show

Note that the inverse of a Hermitian matrix is Hermitian.

(d) Show that the density of X and Y can be written

" 5. Complex nO/mal (continued). If Z has the complex normal distribution of

j
.'

,
Problem 2.64, show that W'= AZ, where A is a nonsingular complex matrix, has
the complex normal distribution with mean A6 and covariance matrix €(W) =
APA*.

2.66. Show that the characteristic function of Z defined in Problem 2.64 is

iP i!it(u* Z)
0e =e I!itU"O-/l" p" •
where {?t(x+iy)""x,

2.6'/. (Sec. 2.2) Sh9W that f':ae-r.l/2dx/fiii is approximately (l_e- 2 "1/,,Y/2.

[Hint: The probability that (X, y) falls in a square is approximately the
probability that (X. Y) falls in an approximating circle [P6lya (1949)1]

2.68. (Sec. 2.7) For the multivariate t-distribution with density (41) show that
GX = ... and 1&'(X) = [m/(m - 2)]A.
CHAPTER 3

Estimation of the Mean Vector

and the Covariance l'Ilatrix

3.1. INTRODUCfION

The multivariate normal distribution is specified completely by the mean

vector f.L and the covariance matrix I. The first statistical problem is how to
estimate these parameters on the basis of a sample of observations. In
Section 3.2 it is shown that the maximum likelihood estimator of II- is the
sample mean; the maximum likelihood estimator of I is proportional to the
matrix of sample variances and covariances. A sample variance is a sum of
squares of deviations of observations from the sample mean divided by one
less than the number of observations in the sample; a sample covariance is
similarly defined in terms of cross products. The sample covariance matrix is
an unbiased estimator of I.
The distribution of the sample mean vector is given in Section 3.3, and it is
shown how one can test the hypothesis that .... is a given vector when 'I is
known. The case of I unknown will be treated in Chapter 5.
Some theoretical properties of the sample mean are given in Section 3.4,
and the Bayes estimator of the population mean is derived for a normal a
priori distribution. In Section 3.5 the Jame~-'Stein estimator is intr()duced~
IInprovcments over the sample mean for the mean squared error loss func-
tion arc discussed.
In Section 3.6 estimators of the mean vector and covariance matrix of
elliptically contoured distributions and the distributions of the estimators art
treated .

.4n IntroJuction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0·471·36091-.0 Copyrigh! © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

66
3.2 ESTIMATORS OF MEAN VECfORAND CQVARIANCEMATRIX 67

3.2. THE MA'X1MUM liKEliHOOD ESTIMATORS OF THE MEAN

VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Given a sample of (vector) observations from a p~variate (nondegenerate)

normal distribution, we ask for estimators of the mean vector .... and the
covariance matrix ~ of the jistribution. We shall deduce the maximum
likelihood estimators.
It turns out that the method of maximum likelihood is very useful in
various estimation and hypothesis testing problems concerning the multivari-
ate normal distribution. The maximum likelihood estimators or modifications
of them often have some optimum properties. In the particular case studied
here, the estimators are asymptoti~ally efficient [Cramer (1946), Sec. 33.3].
Suppose our sample of N observations on X distributed according to
N(p., :£) is x I' ... , X N' where N > p. The likelihood function is
N
(1) L= fl n{xal 1',:£)
OI~I

In the likelihood function the vectors xl>"" XN are fixed at the sample
values and L is a function of .... and ~. To emphasize that these quantities
are variable~ (and not parameters) we shall denote them by 1'* and I*. Then
the logarithm of the likelihood function is
(2) log L = - ~pN log211'- ~N logl I*I
N
- ~ E (x a - 1'*)':£ *- 1 ( X a - 1'* ) .
01-1

Since log L is an increasing function of L, its maximum is at the same point

in the space of ....*,:£* as the maximum of L. The maximum likelihood
estimators of I' and I are the vector 1-1* and the positive definite matrix I*
that maximize log L. (It remains to be ~een that the supremum OL l.)g L is
attained for a positivc definite matrix I*.)
Let the sample mean oector be

(3) =
68 ESTIMATION OF 1HE MEAN VECTOR AND TIiE COVARIANCE MATRIX

where Xu = (Xla"'" xpa)' and X, = E~_I xia/N, and let the matrix of sums
of squares and cross products of deviations about the mean be
N
(4) A= E (xa-x)(xa-x)'
01.-1

..
I,} = 1 , ... ,p.

It will be convenient to use the following lemma:

.\1
Lemma 3.2.1. Let x I, ••. , X N be N (p-component) vectors, and let x be
defined b:r (3). Then for any vector b
iN N
(5) ,L (xa-b)(xa- b)' = E (xa-x)(xa-x)' +N(x-b)(x-b)'.
a_ 1 a-I

Proof
(6)
N N
E (Xa:"'b)(xa- b)' = E [(Xa-x) + (x-b)][(xa-x) + (x-b))'
a-I

N
- E [( Xa -x)( Xa -x)' + (Xa -x)(x- b)'
a-I

+ (x - b)( Xa - x)' + (X - xlI)( X - b)']

= -E (Xa-x)(Xa- x )' + [ E(Xa-X)](i-b)'

01.-1 a-I

N
+(x-b) E (xa-i)' +N(i-b)(x-b)'.
0-1

The second and third terms on the right-hand jide are 0 because E(x a -x) ..
EXa - NX= 0 by (3). •

When we let b = p.* , we have

(7)
N N
E (xa - p.*)(xu - p.*)' = E (xa -x)( Xu - x)' + N(x - p.*)(~t- p.*)'

=A + N(x - p.*)( x - p.*)'.

3.2 ESTIMATORS OF MEAN VECfOR AND COVARIANCE MATRIX 69

Using this result and the properties of the trace of a matrix (tr CD = EcIJd"
= tr DC), we hale
(8)
N r N
E (x a -p,... ),1; ... -I(%a-P,... ) -tr L (xa -p,... )'1; ... -I(%a-P,... )
0-1
N
= tr E 1; ... -1 (Xa - p,*)( Xa - p,*)'

= tr 1;*-lA + tr 1;*-IN(x- p,... )(1 - p,... )'

= tr 1; ... -IA + N( 1 - p,* ),1*-1 (I - p,.).
Thus we can write (2) as

(9) 10gL= -ipNlog(2'lT) - !Nlogl1;*1

- !tr 1;*-IA - tN( i - p,* )'1*-1 (f - p,*).

Since 1;'" is positive definite, 1;*-1 is positive definite, and N(i-

p,*)'1;*-I(.i - p,*) ~ 0 and is 0 if and only if p,* =i. To maximize the second
and third terms of (9) we use the following lemma (which is also used in later
chapters):

Lemma 3.2.2. If D is positive definite of order p, the maximum of

(10) f(G) =NlloglGI - tr G-ID

with respect to positive definite matrices G exists, occurs at G =(l/N)D, and
has the value
(11) f[(1/N)D] =pNlogN-NlogID\-pN.

Proof. Let D-EE' and E'G- 1E=H. Ther G=EH-IE'. and IGI "'" lEI
-IH- 11 'IE'I - IH- 11 'IEE'I = IDII IHI, and tr G-ID - tr G-1EE' -
trE'G-\,-trH. Then the function to be maximized (with respect to posi-
five,4efhiite H) is
J~) ,
.( 12) "{'~"1,;+
..~'!.)
f= - N 10giDI + N 10glHl - tr H.
:Let q '£ 'd,:, ~here T is lower triangular (CoroUuy A.1.7). Then the
m~lnof
t •• '

'(13~ ',"" f- -N 10glDI + N logl71 2 - tr1T'

...:..,f' p
= -Nlog\DI + E (Nlogt~-tl;)- E t3
';1'
r
I,
f
;-1 i>J
1.
70 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

occurs at tl~ = N, (I; = 0, i *" j; that is, at H = NI. Then G = (1/N)EE' =

(l/N)D. •

Theorem 3.2.1. If x p .•. , XN constitute a sample from N(p., I) with p < N,

the maximum likelihood estimators of fJ. and I are fa. = x = (1/ N)L~", 1 XQ' and
i = (l/N)r.~ .ICX a -iXxa -i)', respectively.
Other methods of deriving the maximum likelihood estimators have been
discussed by Anderson and Olkin (1985). See Problems 3.4, 3.8, and 3.12.
Computation of the estimate i is made easier by the specialization of
Lemma 3.2.1 (b = 0)
N N
(14) E (xQ'-i)(xa- x)'= E xax~-~xi'.
a=l a= I

An element of L~=IXaX~ is computed as r.~=lXlaXja, and an element of

~xi' is computed as Ni,x; or (r.~= 1 Xla)(r.~= 1 x;a)/N. It should be noted
that if N > p. the probability is 1 of drawing a sample so that (14) is positive
definite; see Problem 3.17.
The covariance matrix can be written in terms of the variances or standard
deviations and correlation coefficients. These are uniquely defined by the
variances and covariances. We assert that the maximum likelihood estimators
of functions of the parameters are those functions of the maximum likelihood
estima tors of the parameters.

Lemma 3.2.3. Let f( e) be a real-valued function defined on a set S, and let

c/J be a single-valued function, with a single-valued inverse, on S to a set S*; that
is, to each e E S there co"esponds a unique e* E S*, and, conversely, to each
e* E S* there corresponds a unique e E S. Let

(IS)

Then if fce) attains a maximum at e:o::: eo, g(e*) attains a maximum at

8* = 8;j = c/Jce o )' If the maximum off(8) at eo is uniquiJ, so is the maximum
of g(e'~) at e~.

Proof By hypothesis f( eo) ~ f( e) for all e E S. Then for any e* E S*

Thus g(e*) attains a maximum at e;. If the maximum of fee) at eo is

*"
unique, there is strict inequality above for e eo, and the maximum of g(e*)
IS unique. •
3.2 ESTIMATORS OF MEAN VECfQR AND COVARIANCEMATR]X 71

We have the following corollary:

Corollary 3.2.1. If On the basis of a given sample 81" " , 8m are maximum
likelihood estimators of the parameters 81"'" 8m of a distribution, then
cJ>1(8 1• '1'" 8m)~"" cJ>m(8 1, ... , em) are maximum likelihood estir.12tor~' of
cJ>1(8 1•••• ,8m), •.•• cJ>m((lt' ... ,8m) if the transformation from 8 1, ... ,Om to
cJ>l" ••• cJ>m is one-to-one.t If the estimators of 0 1" " , Om are unique, then the
estimators of cJ>1"'" cJ>m are unique.

Corollal) 3.2.2. If x I •... , XN constitutes a sample from N(p.. I-), where

OJ) = OJ OJ' Pi) (Pa = 1), then the maximum likelihood estimator of p. is P. = x =
(ljN)LaXa; the maximum likelihood estimator of a/ is Bi 2 == (ljN)L a(x 1a -
X)2 = (ljN)(L a X;a - NX;), where Xja is the ith component ofxa andx j is the
ith component of x; and the maximum likelihood estimator of Pij is

(17)

Proof. The set of parameters /-tl = /-til a;2 = [fll' and Prj = ujj ujjOj j is a V
one-to-one transform of the set of parameters /-t{ and UIj' Therefore. by
Corollary 3.2.1 the estimator of /-ti is Mi' of u/ is au, and of PJj is

(18)
•
Pearson (1896) gave a justification for this estimator of Pi)' and (17) is
sometimes called the Pearson correlation coefficient. It is also called the
simple correlation coefficient. It is usuaUy denoted by rl)'

tTbe assumpbon that the transformation is one-to-onc i!\ made 50 that the sct 4>" ... , 4>m
un\quc1y define!> the likelihood. An alternative in ca....e fJ.fI "" cf>( (}) doe:! not have a unique inverse
Is to define $(0*)=(0: 4>(0)=0*} and g(o*)=supj'(O)IOES(O*), whieh is considered the
"induced likelihood"when !(O) is the likelihood function. Then 0* .. 4>(6) maximizes g(O*),
for g(O*)'" sup!(O)IOE S(6*):?: supf(O)IOE S =1(6)" g(6*) for all 0* ES*. {See, e.g.,
Zehna (1966).1
72 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATR1X

.. ------------~~--------~~
d~

Flgure3.1

A convenient geometrical interp retation oftbis sample (x" x" •.• , X N) - ~

is in tenns of the rows of X. Let

X~N = (U;l .
(19) . .
, '
x pN up

that is, u~ is the ith row of X. The vector Ui can be considered as a vector in
an N-dimensional space with the ath coordinate of one endpoint being x la
and the other endpoint at the origin. Thus the sample is represented by p
vectors in N-dimensional Euclidean space. By defmition of the Euclidean
metric, the squared length of Ui (that is, the squared distance of one
endpoint from the other) is UiUi" E~_lxta'
Now let us show that the cosine of the an Ie between u, and u) is
ujujl "';u~u,ujUj .... EZ. 1 xu"xJ,./ E~.l X;aEZ ... 1 xJa' Choose the scalar d so
the vector duJ is orthogonal to U, - du); that is, 0 = du~(Ui - dul ) = d(uju, -
~uJ)' Therefore, d-uJu;lujuj' We decompose U, into Ui-duj and duj
lUi = (u du j ) + duJl as indicated in Figure 3.1. The absolute value of the
l -

cosine of the angle between Ui and uJ is the length of duJ divided by the
length of Ui; that is, it is ';du~(duj)/u~ul - "';du}uJdlu~ui; the cosine is
uiu)1 ";u~u:u~uj' This proves the desired result.
. , .
To give a geometric interpretation of a,j and a'II "aUal) ' we introduce
the equiangular line, which is the line going through the origin and the point
(1, 1, ... ,1). See Figure 3.2. The projection of u, on the vector E - (1, 1, ... ', I)'
is (E'U'/E'E)E = (E"x 1aIE"I)E -XiE - (XI' x" ... ,Xj)'. Then we decpmpose
Ui into XiE, the projection on the equiangular line, and U, -XiE, ~e
projection of U I on the plane perpendicular to the equiangular line. The
squared length of U, - XIE is (Ui - XiE )'(u l - X,E) ... Ea(x'a - X/)2; this is
NU" = au' Translate Us -XjE and uj - XJE, so th~~each vector has an enp.-
point at the origin; the ath coordinate of the first vector is Xja -x" and of
 ·2 ESTIMATORS OF MEAN VEcroR AND COVARIANCE MATRIX 73

~he s~cond is X Ja - xj* The cOsine of the angle between these two vectors is

(20)

N
E (Xla - xi )( xia -XJ}
N N
E (Xla _X )2 E (Xja -XJ)2
j
a-I

As an example of the calculations consider the data in Table 3.1 and

gtaphed in Figure 3.3, taken from Student (1908). The measurement Xu - 1.9
on the fIrst patient is the increase in the number of hours of sleep due to the
use of the sedative A, Xu = 0.7 is the increase in the number of hours due to

Table 3.1. Increase in Steep

Drug A. DrugB
( Patient Xl X2
1 1.9 0.7
J \'
2 0.8 -1.6
!'
3 1.1 -0.2
, 4 0.1 -1.2
• 5 -0.1 -0.1
6 4.4 3.4
7 5.5 3.7
8 1.6 0.8
9 4.6 0.0
10 3.4 2.0
74 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

• •
3

2 •

Flgure 3.3. Increase in sleep.

sedative B, and so on. Assuming that each pair (i.e., each row in the table) is
an observation from N(J.\.,:'£), we find that

I. _ x (2.33)
r- 0.75 '

(21) i _ (3.61 2.56)

2.56 2.88'
s = (4.01 2.85 )
2.85 3.20 1

and i>IJ:::O rl~ - 0.7952. (S will be defined later.)

3.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE MEAN VECTOR;

INFERENCE CONCERNING THE MEAN WHEN THE COVARIANCE
MATRIX IS KNOWN

3.3.1. Distribution Theory

In the univariate case the mean of a sample is distributed normally and
independently of the sample variance. Similarly, the sample mean X defined
in Section 3.2 is distributed normally and independently of t.
3.3 THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE MEAN VECTOR 75

To prove this result we shall make a transformation of the set of observa-

tion vectors. Because this kind of transformation is used several times in this
book, we first prove a more general theorem.

Theorem 3.3.1. Suppose X I"'" X N are independent, where Xa is dis-

tributed according to N(p.a' I). Let C = (ca,8) be an N X N orthogonal matrix.
Then fa=r.~"'ICa,8X,8 is distributed according to N(va , I), where Va=
r.~"" 1ca,8 p.,8' a = 1, ... , N, and f l , •.. , fN are independent.

Proof: The set of vectors f l , ... , fN have a joint normal distribution,

because the entire set of components is a set of linear combinations of the
components of Xl"'" X N , which have a joint normal distribution. The
expected value of fa is

N N
(1 ) $fa = $ E ca,8X,8 = E ca,8 $X,8
,8=1 ,8=1

N
= ~ c a,8p.,8 = Va'
,8=1

The covariance matrix between fa and f-y is

(2) .If(fa' f;) = $( fa - Va )(f-y - v-y)'

= $ [
,8-1
E ca,8 (X,8 - p.,8)] [ E
e=l
c-yA Xe - p.e)']

N
E ca,8c-y,,$(X,8- p.,8)(X,,- p..,)'
,8. c= I

N
= E La,8C-ye o,8e I
,8, c= 1

where 0a-y is the Kronee ker delta (= 1 if a = '}' and = 0 if a =1= '}').
This shows that fa is independent of f-y, a =1= ,}" and fa has the covariance
matrix I. •
76 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

We also use the following general lemma:

Lemma 3.3.1. If C-(caP) is orthogonal, then E~_lxax~ = E~.lYaY~,

where Ya = E~_l caPxP' a = 1, ... , N.

Proof
N
(3) E YaY~ == E Ecapxp Eca-yx;
a= I a p -y

= E ( Ecapca-y )XpX~
~. -y a

= E Op-y Xp X-y
~,-y

•
Let Xl"'" X N be independent, each distributed according to N(IL, I).
There exists an N X N orthogonal matrix B = (baf;)) with the last row

( 4) (1/1N, ... ,1/1N).

(See Lemma A.4.2.) This transformation is a rotation in the N-dimensional
space described in Section 3.2 with the equiangular line going into the Nth
coordinate axis. Let A = Ni, defined in Section 3.2, and let
N
(5) Za = E baPXp.
~=l

Then

(6)

By Lemma 3.3.1 we have

N
(7) A= EXax~-NiX'
a=l

N
= E ZaZ~ - ZNZN
a=l
33 THE DIsTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE MEAN VECfOR 77

Since ZN is independent of Zl'" ., ZN-l' the mean vector i is independent

of A. Since
N N 1
(8) tlZ N = E bNf3 t1Xf3= E r;:; .... = IN .... ,
f3=1 f3=1 vN
ZN is distributed according to N(IN .... , I) and i = (111N)ZN is distributed
according to N[ .... , (lIN)I]. We note
N N
(9) tlZa = E baf3 tlXf3 = E baf3 ....
f3=1 f3=1

N
= E baf3 bNf3 1N JL
f3=1
=0, a=t=N.

Theorem 3.3.2. The mean of a sample of size N from N( JL, I) is distributed

according to N[ .... , (1 IN)I] and independently of i, the maximum likelihood
estimator of I. NI is distributed as r.~: tZa Z~, where Za is distributed
according to N(O, I), a = 1, ... , N - 1, and ZI"'" ZN-l are independent.

Definition 3.3.1. An estimator t of a parameter vector 6 is unbiased if and

only if tlot = 6.

Since tlX= (1IN)tlr.~"'lXa = ...., the sample mean is an unbiased estima-

tor of the population mean. However,
~ 1 N-l N-l
(10) tI'£ = N tI E
ZaZ~ = ----,;r-I.
a=l

Thus I is a biased estimator of I. We shall therefore define

N
(11) s= N~ l A = N~1 E (xa-x)(xa-x)'
a=l

as the sample covariance matrix. It is an unbiased estimator of I and the

diagonal elements are the usual (unbiased) sample variances of the compo-
nents of X.

3.3.2. Tests and Confidence Regions for the Mean Vector When the
Covariance Matrix Is Known
A statistical problem of considerable importance is that of testing the
hypothesis that the mean vector of a normal distribution is a given vector.
78 ESTIMATION OF TIlE MEAN VECI'OR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

and a related problem is that of giving a confidence region for the unknown
vector of means. We now go on to study these problems under the assump-
tion that the covariance matrix I is known. In Chapter 5 we consideJ' these
problems when the covariance matrix is unknown.
In the univariate case one bases a test or a confidence interval on the fact
that the difference between the sample mean and the population mean is
normally distributed with mean zero and known variance; then tables of the
normal distribution can be used to set up significance points or to compute
confidence intervals. In the multivariate case one uses the fact that the
difference between the sample mean vector and the population mean vector
is normally distributed with mean vector zero and known covariance matrix.
One could set up limits for each component on the basis of the distribution,
but this procedure has the disadvantages that the choice of limits is some-
what arbitrary and in the case of tests leads to tests that may be very poor
against some alternatives, and, moreover, such limits are difficult to compute
because tables are available only for the bivariate case. The procedures given
below, however, are easily computed and furthermore can be given general
intuitiw and theoretical justifications.
The procedures and evaluation of their properties are based on the
following theorem:

Theorem 3.3.3. If the m-component vector Y is distributed according to

N( v, T) (nonsingular), then Y 'T- 1 Y is distribu.ted according to the noncentral
X 2-distribu.tion with m degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter v 'T- 1 v.
If v = 0, the distribution is the central X 2-distribution.

Proof. Let C be a nonsingular matrix such that CTC' = I, and define

Z = CY Then Z is normally distributed with mean GZ == C G Y == C v = A, say,
and covariance matrix G(Z - AXZ - A)' = GC(Y- vXY - v)'C' = CTC' =1.
Then Y'T- 1 Y = Z'(C,)-IT-1C-IZ = Z'(CTC)-lZ = Z'Z, which is the sum of
squares of the components of Z. Similarly v 'T- 1 v = A' A. Thus Y'T- 1 Y is
distributed as E7~ 1 Z:, where Zp'''' Zm are independently normally dis-
tributed with means AI> .•• , Am' respectively, and variances 1. By definition
this distributi{ n is the noncentral X 2-distribution with noncentrality parame-
ter E:n- 1 A~. See Section 3.3.3. If AI = '" = Am = 0, the distribution is central.
(See Problem 7.5.) •

Since fN (X - po) is distributed according to N(O, I), it follows from the

theorem that
(12)
3.3 THE DlSTRIBUTJON OF THE SAMfLE MEAN VECTOR 79

has a (central) x2-distribution with p degrees of freedom. This is the

fundamental fact we use in setting up tests and confidence regions concern-
ing IJ..
Let x;( a) be the number such that

(13) Pr{x; > x;( a)} = a.

Thus

(14)

To test the hypothesis that IJ. = lJ.o' where lJ.o is a specified vector, we use as
our critical region

(15)

If we obtain a sample such that (15) is satisfied, we reject the null hypothe"is.
It can be seen intuitively that the probability is greater than a of rejecting
the hypothesis if IJ. is very different from lJ.o. since in the space of x (15)
defines an ellipsoid with center at lJ.o' and when IJ. is far from lJ.o the density
of x will be concentrated at a point near the edge or outside of the ellipsoid.
The quantity N(i lJ.o)'I -I(i - lJ.o) is distributed as a noncentral X 2 with
p degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter N(IJ. - lJ.o)'~ -1(1J. - lJ.o)
when i is the mean of a sample of N from N(IJ.,~) [given by Bose
(1936a),(1936b)]. Pearson (1900) first proved Theorem 3.3.3 for v = O.
Now consider the following statement made on the basis of a sample with
mean i: 'lThe mean of the distribution satisfies

(16)

as an inequality on IJ.*." We see from (14) that the probability that a sample
will be drawn such that the above statement is true is 1- a because the
event in (14) is equivalent to the statement being false. Thus, the set of IJ.*
satisfying (16) is a confidence region for IJ. with confidence 1 - a.
In the p-dimensional space of i, (15) is the surface and exterior of an
ellipsoid with center lJ.o, the shape of the ellipsoid depending" on ~ -1 and
the size on (1/N)x;(a) for given ~-l. In the p-dimensional space of IJ.*
(16) is the surface and interior of an ellipsoid with its center at X. If ~ -I = I,
then (14) says that the robability is a that the distance between x and IJ. is
greater than X;( a )/N.
80 . ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Theorem 3.3.4. Ifi is the mean of a sample of N drawn from N(v., I) and
I is known, then (15) gives a critical region of size a for testing the hypothesis
V. = v'o, and (16) gives a confidence region for V. I)f confidence 1 - a. Here
Xp2( a) bi chosen to satisfy (13).

The same technique can be used for the corresponding two-sample prob-
lems. Suppose we have a sample {X~l)}, a = 1, ... , N 1, from the dIstribution
N( p(l), I), and a sample {x~:)}, a = 1, ... , N 2 , from a second normal popula-
tion N( p(2l, ~) with the same covariance matrix. Then the two sample
means

N, 1 N~
(17) -(1)
X
= _1_"
N L.....
(I)
xa , x(2) =N L x~2)
I a= I 2 a= 1

are distributed independently according to N[ pOl, (1/ N1)I] and

N[ p(2), (1/N2 ) I ], respectively. The difference of the two sample means,
y = i(l) - x(2), is distributed according to NEv, [(l/N1) + (1/N2 )]I}, where
v = v.(l) - v.(2). Thus

( 18) NNIN2
+N (y - V
)'~k -l( Y - V
) ~ X" 2()
a
I 2

is a confidence region for the difference v of th~ two mean vectors, and a
critical region for testing the hypothesis v.(l) = f.1.(2) is given by

(19)

Mahalanobis (1930) suggested (v.(l) - v.(2)),I - I (v.(I) - v.(2)) as a measure of

the distance squared between two populations. Let e be a matrix such that
I = ee' and let v(l) = e-1v.(J\ i = 1,2. Then the distance squared is (v(l) -
v(2)),( V(I) - v(2»), which is the Euclidean distance squared.

3.3.3. The Noncentral X2-Distribution; the Power Function

The power function of the test (15) of the null hypothesis that V. = v'o can be
evaluated from the noncentral X2-distribution. The central X2-distribution is
the distribution of the sum of squares of independent (scalar) normal
variables with means 0 and variances 1; the noncentral X 2-distribution is the
generalization of this when the means may be different from O. Let Y (of p
components) be distributed according to N(A, I). Let Q be an orthogonal
3.3 mE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE MEAN VECTOR 81

matrix with elements of the first row being

(20) i = 1, . .. ,p.

Then Z = QY is distributed according to N( T, I), where

( 21)

and T=J"A.''A. Let V=~"Y=Z'Z=L;=IZ;. Then W=L;=2ZI1 has a X 2-

distribution with p - 1 degrees of freedom (Problem 7.5), and Z 1 and W
have as joint density

--1 e -{(Z-1")~
- I 1 ~(p-I)-l e -~K'
-
(22) w-
J27r 2~(p-l)r[ H p - 1)]

where C- 1 = 2W;:;n~(p -0]. The joint density of V= W + Z~ and ZI is

obtained by substituting w = v - zr
(the Jacobian being 0:

:;c a a
_.!.("t2+u)( 2)t(P-3) " T Zl
(23) Ce Z V-Z 1 t..J -,-.
a.
a=O

The joint density of V and U = Zl//V is (dz! = IVdu)

cc a ~O: a
L
L

(24) Ce-t(T2+l»v~(P-2)(1_ u 2 };(p-3) T ~! u

a=O

The admissible range of Zl given v is - IV to IV, and the admissible range

of u is -1 to 1. When we integrate (24) with respect to u term by term, the
terms for a odd integrate to 0, since such a term is an odd function of u. In
82 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

the other integrations we substitute u = IS (du = ~ds / IS) to obtain

(25) /1 (1- u2)~(p-3)u2/3du = 211(1- u 2)!(p-3)u 2 /3du

-I 0

=B[1(p-l),,8+1J
r[!(p-l)]r(,8+1)
r(!p+,8)
by the usual properties of the beta and gamma functions. Thus the density of
V is

(26)

We ~an use the duplication formula for the gamma function r(2,8 + 1) = (2,8)!
(Problem 7.37),

( 27) r(2,8+ 1) = r(,8+ t)f(,8+ 1) 2 2 /3/r:;r ,

to rewrite (26) as

(28)

This is the density of the noncentral X1-distribution with p degrees of free-

dom and noncentrality parameter T2.

Theorem 3.3.5. If Y of p components is distributed according to N( A, I),

then V = Y'Y has the density (28), where T2 = A 'A.

To obtain the power function of the test (15), we note that /N(X - ..... 0)
has the distribution N[/N ( ..... - ..... 0)' I]. From Theorem 3.3.3 we obtain the
following corollary:

Corollary 3.3.1. If X is the mean of a random sample of N drawn from

N( ..... , I), then N(X - ..... 0)'I-1(X - ..... 0) has a noncentral X 2-distribution with p
degrees of freedom and noncent:ality parameter N( ..... - ..... o)'I -1( ..... - ..... 0).
3.4 THEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF ESTIMATORS OF THE MEAN VECfOR 83

3.4. THEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF ESTIMATORS

OF THE MEAN VECTOR

3.4.1. Properties of l\laximum Likelihood Estimators

It was shown in Section 3.3.1 that x and S are unbiased estimators of JL and
I, respectively. In this subsection we shall show that x and S are sufficient
statistics and are complete.

Sufficiency
A statistic T is sufficient for a family of distributions of X or for a parameter
9 if the conditional distribution of X given T = t does not depend on 8 [e.g.,
Cramer (1946), Section 32.4]. In this sense the statistic T gives as much
information about 8 as the entire sample X. (Of course, this idea depends
strictly on the assumed family of distributions')

Factorization Theorem. A statistic t(y) is sufficient for 8 if and only if the

density fey 18) can be factored as

(1 ) f(YI8) =g[t(y),8]h(y),

where g[t(y), 8] and hey) are nonnegative and hey) does not depend on 8.

Theorem 3.4.1. If Xl"'.' XN are observations from N(JL, I), then x and S
are sufficient for JL and I. If fL is given, L ~"I (x a - JL)( Xa - JL)' is sufficient for
I. If I is given, x is sufficient for JL.

Proof. The density of Xl'"'' X N is

N
(2) fl n( xal JL, I)
a=I

= (27T f" tNPI II- tN exp[ - !tr I-I t

a'"'1
(xa - JL)( xa - JL)']

= (27T) - tNp 1II - tN exp { - ! [N ( x - JL)' I - I ( X - JL) + (N - 1) tr I-I S I} .

The right-hand side of(2) is in the form of(I) for x, S, JL, I, and the middle
is in the form of (1) for L~=I(Xa - JLXXa - JLY, I; in each case h(x I, ... ,x N )
= 1. The right-hand side is in the form of (1) for x, JL with h(x l ,···, XN) =
exp{ - teN - 1) tr I -IS}. •

Note that if I is given, x is sufficient for JL, but if JL is given, S is not

sufficient for I.
84 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Completeness
To prove an optimality property of the T 2-test (Section 5.5), we need the
result that (i, S) is a complete sufficient set of statistics for ( .... , I).

Definition 3.4.1. A family of distributions of y indexed by 0 is complete if

for every real-valued function g(y),
(3)
identically in 0 implies g(y) = 0 except for a set of y of probability 0 fur every o.
If the family of distributions of a sufficient set of statistics is complete, the
set is called a complete sufficient set.

Theorem 3.4.2. The sufficient set of statistics i, S is complete for ...., I when
the sample is drawn from N( .... , I).

Proof We can define the sample in terms of i and Z I' ... , Zn as in Section
3.3 with n = N - 1. We assume for any function g(x, A) = g(i, nS) that

(4) f··· f KI II- ~N g (i' a~1 ZaZ~ )

.exp{ - ~[N(X - l1J'r'(x - 11) + Z~l:-'z.]} .t

n
·dX TI dz a ;;;: 0, v.... , I,
a=1

where K = /N(2'Tr)- 'u>N, dX = 0;=1 dip and dz a = 01=1 dz ia . If we let I- 1

=1-28, where' 8=8' and 1-28 is positive definite, and let .... =
(I - 20)-l t , then (4) is

(5) 0", J-.-JKII - 2011N (x, .t, z.z~ )

g

.e;;p{ - +r(l- Lt, zQz~

20) + N"xX')

- 2Nt'x + Nt '(I - 20) -I t]} dX b. dz.

= II - 201 iN exp{ -1Nt'(I - 20) -1 t}f ... f g( i, B -NiX')

n n
. exp[tr 0B + t'( Nt)] n[ xl 0, (lIN)I] n n(z,,1 0,1) dX f1 dz
a~ I a=l
a•
3.4 THEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF ESTIMATORS OF THE MEAN VEC"TOR 8S

( 6) 0 ::;;; Gg ( x, B - ~.ti') exp [tr 0 B + t ' ( NX) 1

= f··· f g( x, B - ~.ti') exp[tr 0B + t'( NX)] h( x, B) didB,

where h(x, B) is the joint density of x and B and dB = n, $1 db,}. The

right-hand side of (6) is the Laplace transform of g(x, B - ~xX')h(i, B).
Since this is 0, g(x, A) = 0 except for a set of measure O. •

Efficiency
If a q-component random vector Y has mean vector GY = v and covariance
matrix G(Y - v Xy - v)' = W, then

(7)

is called the concentration ellipsoid of Y. [See Cramer (1946), p. 300.1 The

d.ensity defined by a uniform distribution over the interior of this ellipsoid
has the same mean vector and covariance matrix as Y. (See P"'oblem 2.14.)
Let 6 be a vector of q parameters in a distribution, and let t be a vector of
unbiased estimators (that is, Gt = 6) based on N observations from that
distribution with covariance matrix W. Then the ellipsoid

( 8) N ( t - 6)' G ( a ~o: f) ( d ~o: f) ,(t - 6) = q + 2

lies entirely within the ellipsoid of concentration of t; a log f / a6 denotes the

column vector of derivatives of the density of the distribution (or probability
function) with respect to the components of 6. The discussion by Cramer
(1946, p. 495) is in terms of scalar observations, but it is clear that it holds
true for vector observations. If (8) is the ellipsoid of concentration of t, then
t is said to be efficient. In general, the ratio of the volume of (8) to that of
the ellipsoid of concentration defines the efficiency of t. In the case of the
multivariate normal distribution, if 6 = 1-'-, then i is efficient. If 6 includes
both I.l. and I, then x and S have efficiency [(N - l)/Nll'{Y + I) I~. Under
suitable regularity conditions, which are satisfied by the multivariate normal
distribution,

(9) G ( a log f) ( a log f ), = _ G a2 log f

aO a6 a6 a6' .

This is the information matrix for one observation. The Cramer-Rao lower
86 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VEcrOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

bound is that for any unbiased ~stimator t the matrix

, 2log f ]-1
( 10) N$(t-O)(t-O) - [-$ rIaoao'
is positive semidefinite. (Other lower bounds can also be given.)

Consis te1lc.v

Definition 3.4.2.A sequence of vectors tn = (t I","', tmn )', n = 1,2, ... , is

a consistent estimator of 0 = (8 1, ..• , 8m )' if plim., ... C/}in = 0i' i = 1, ... , m.

By the law of large numbers each component of the sample mean i is a

consistent estimator of that component of the vector of expected values .... if
the observation vectors are i ldependently and identically distributed with
mean fL, and hence i is a consistent estimator of ..... Normality is not
involved.
An element of the sample covariance matrix is

1 N N _ _
(11) S'I = N_ I L (x", - ,u,)(x}<y - ,u}) - N -1 (Xi - ,u,)( X, - ,u,)
<> ~ I

by Lemma 3.2.1 with b = The probability limit of the second term is O.

.....
The probability limit of the first term is (T'I if x" x 2 , ••• are independently
and identically distributed with mean .... and covariance matrix I. Then S is
a consistent estimator of I.

Asymptotic Nonnality
First we prove a multivariate central limit theorem.

Theorem 3.4.3. Let the m-component vectors Y1, Y2 , • •. be independently

and identically distributed with means $Ya = 11 and covariance matrices
$0":. - vXY" - v)' = T. Then the limiting distribution of (1/f,ln:~ .. 1(Ya - v)
as /1 - 00 is N(O, T).

Proof Let

( 12) <p,,(t,u)=$exp iut' c1'1

[
L (Y,,-v) , 1
vn a~1

where Ii is a scalar and t an m-component vector. For fixed t, ¢1I(t, u) can be

considered as the characteristic function of (1/f,ln:~"I(t'Ya - $t'Ya ). By
3.4 TIlEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF ESTIMATORS OF TIlE MEAN YECfOR 87

the univariate central limit theorem [Cramer (1946), p. 21S]' the limiting
distribution is N(O, t ' Tt). Therefore (Theorem 2.6.4),

(13)

for every u and t. (For t = 0 a special and obvious argument is used.) Let
u = 1 to obtain

(14) lim G exp[it,_I_

n .... OO rn
i: (Ya - l1)j = e - f"TI
a'" 1

for every t. Since e- ir'Tr is continulJus at t = 0, the convergence is uniform in

Some neighborhood of t = O. The theorem follows. •

Now we wish to show that the sample covariance matrix is asymptotically

norr.aally distributed as the sample size increases.
N - -,
Theorem 3.4.4. Let A(n) = L. a; l(Xa - XNXX a - X N), where XI> X 2 ....
are independently distributed according to N(,.." I) and n = N - 1. Then the
limiting distribution of B(n) = (1/rn)[A(n) - nI] is nonnal with mean 0 and
co va rian ces

(IS)

Proof As shown earlier, A(n) is distributed as A(n) = L.~_lZaZ~, where

Zl' Zz,··· are distributed independently according to N(O. I). We arrange
the elements of Za Z~ in a 'vector such as

(16) y=
a

the moments of fa can be deduced from the moments of Za as given in

Section 2.6. We have GZ,aZia = Uti' GZtaZjaZkaZla = UijUkl + UjkVjl +
UUVjk' G(ZiaZia Uii)(ZkaZla - Ukl) = DikOj'l'+ uUVjk' Thus the vectors fa
defined by (16) satisfy the conditions of Theorem 3.4.3 with the elements
of 11 being the elements of I arranged in vector form similar to (16)
88 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

and the elements of T being .given above. If the elements of A(n) are
arranged in vector form similar to (16), say the vector Wen), then Wen) - nv
= L~"I(Ya - v). By Theorem 3.4.3, (1/ v'n)[W(n) - nv] has a limiting normal
distribution with mean 0 and the covariance matrix of Ya . II

The elements of B(n) will have a limiting normal distribution with mean .0
if x I' x 2 , ••• are independently and identically distributed with finite fourth-
order momcnts, bUl thc covariance slructure of B(n) will depend on thc
fourth-order moments.

3.4.2. Decision Theory

It may he enlightening to consider estimation in telms of decision theory. We
review some of the concepts. An observation x is made on a random variable
X (which may be a vector) whose distribution P8 depends on a parameter 0
which is an element of a set e. The statistician is to make a deci~ion d in a
set D. A decision procedure is a function D(x) whose domain is the set of
values of X and whose range is D. The loss in making decision d when the
distribution is P8 is a nonnegative function L(O, d). The evaluation of a
procedure D(x) is on the basis of the risk function

(17) R(O,D) = c&'8L[O,D(X)].

For example, if d and 0 are univariate, the loss may be squared error,
= (0 - d)2, and the risk is the mean squared error $8[ D( X) - 0 F.
L( 0, d)
A decision procedure D(x) is as good as a procedure D*(x) if

(18) R( 0,15) ~ R( 0,15*), 'flO;

D(X) is better than D*(x) if (18) holds with a strict inequality for at least one
value of O. A procedure D*(x) is inadmissible if there exists another proce-
dure D(x) that is better than D*(x). A procedure is admissible if it is not
inadmissible (Le., if there is no procedure better than it) in terms of the given
loss function. A class of procedures is complete if for any procedure not in
the class there is a better procedure in the class. The class is minimal
complete if it does not contain a proper complete subclass. If a minimal
complete class exists, it is identical to the class of admissible procedures.
When such a class is avai lable, there is no (mathematical) need to use a
procedure outside the minimal complete class. Sometimes it is convenient to
refer to an essentially complete class, which is a class of procedures o;uch that
for every procedure outside the class there is one in the class that is just as
good.
3.4 THEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF ESTIMATORS OF THE MEAN VECTOR 89

For a given procedure the risk function is a function of the parameter. If

the parameter can be assigned an a priori distribution, say, with density p( A),
th ~n the average loss from use of a decision procedure o(x) is
(19)

Given the a priori density p, the decision procedure o(x) that minimizes
r( p, 0) is the Bayes procedure, and the resulting minimum of r( p, 0) is the
Bayes ri<;k. Under general conditions Bayes procedures are admissible and
admissible procedures are Bayes or limits of Bayes procedur~s. If the dt:nsity
of X given 8 is f(xi 8), the joint density of X and 8 is fixl 8)p(O) and the
average risk of a procedure Sex) is

(20) r( p,o) = j jL[8,0(x)]f(x I8)p(O)dxd8

e x

= fx{feL[8,0(X)]g(8IX)d8}f(X) dx;

here

(21) f(x) = jf(xI8)p(8)d8, (81 ) = f( xl 8) p( 8)

e g x f( x)

are the marginal density of X and the a posteriori density of e given x. The
procedure that minimizes r( p, 0) is one that for each r minimizes the
expression in braces on the right-hand sid~ or (20), that is, the expectation of
L[O, Sex)] with respect to the a posteriori distrib·Jtion. If 8 and d are vectors
(0 and d) and L(O, d) = (0 - d)'Q(O - d), where Q is positive definite, then

(22) Co1xL[0,d(x)] = gfllx[O- rf(Olx)]'Q[O- (F(Olx)]

+ [J:'(Olx) -d(x)]'Q[~(Olx) -d(x)].
The minimum occurs at d(x) = J."(Olx), the mean of the a posteriori distribu-
tion.

Theorem 3.4.5. If x 1> ••• , X N are independently distributed, each Xa accord-

ing to N( ..... , I), and if ..... has an a priori distribution N( v, <l», then the a
posteriori distlibution of ..... given Xl"'" XN i'l normal with mean

(23)

and covariance matrix

(24)
90 ESTI~ATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Proof Since x is sufficient for IJ., we need only consider x, which has the
distribution of IJ. + v, where v has the distribution N[O,(ljN)I] and is
independent of IJ.. Then the joint distribution of IJ. and x is

(25)

The mean of the conditional distribution of IJ. given x is (by Theorem 2.5.1)

(26) ( 1)-1 ( x - v) ,
v + <I> <I> + N I

which reduces to (23). •

Corollary 3.4.1. If XI'.·.' X N are independently distributed, each x a ac-

cording to N(fl., I), fl. has an a priori distribution N( v, <1», and the loss function
is (d - fL)'Q(d - fl.), then the Bayes estimator of fl. is (23).

The Bayes estimator of fl. is a kind of weighted average of x and v, the

prior mean of IJ.. If (ljN)I is small compared to <I> (e.g., if N is large), v is
given little weight. Pu t another way, if <I> is large, that is, the prior is
relatively uninformative, a large weight is put on x. In fact, as <I> tends to 00
in the sense that <1>- 1 - 0, the estimator approaches x.
A decision procedure 0o(x) is minimax if

(27) supR( 0,0 0 ) = inf supR( e, 0).

8 [, 8

Theorem 3.4.6. If XI' ... , X N are illdependently distributed each according

to N(fl., I) and the loss function is (d - IJ.)'Q(d - fl.), then x is a minimax
estimator.

Proof This follows from a theorem in statistical decision theory that if a

procedure 50 is extended Bayes [i.e., if for arbitrary 8, r( p, 0 0 ) :5 r( p, Op) + 8
for suitable p, where op is the corresponding Bayes procedure] and if
R(O, 00 ) is constant, then 00 is minimax. [See, e.g., Ferguson (1967), Theo-
rem 3 of Section 2.11.] We find

(28) R(IJ., x) = G(x- IJ.)'Q(x- IJ.)

= G tr Q( x - IJ.)( x - IJ.)'
1
= NtrQ I.
3.5 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN 91

Let (23) be d(x). Its average risk is

For more discussion of decision theory see Ferguson (1967). DeGroot

(1970), or Berger (1980b).

3.5. IMPROVED ESTll\1ATION OF THE MEAN

3.5.1. Introduction
The sample mean x seems the natural estimator of the population mean Il-
based on a sample from N(Il-, 1:). It is the maximum likelihood estimator, a
sufficient statistic when ~ is known, and the minimum variance unbiased
estimator. Moreover, it is equivariant in the sense that if an arbitrary vector v
is added to each observation vector and to Il-. the error of estimation
(x + v) - (Il- + v)::= X - Il- is independent of v; in other words, the error
does not depend on the choice of origin. However. Stein (1956b) showed the
startling fact that this conventional estimator is not admissible with respect to
the loss function that is the sum of mean squared errors of the components
when ~ = I and p? 3. James and Stein (1961) produced an estimator whiCh
has a smaller sum of mean squared errors; this estimator will be studied in
Section 3.5.2. Subsequent studies have shown that the phenomenon is
widespread and the implications imperative.

3.5.2. The James-Stein Estimator

The loss function
p
(1) L(p.,m) = (m Il-)'(m -Il-) = 2: (m, -11-,)2 =lIm 1l-1I2
i=1

is the Sum of mean squared errorS of the components of the estimator. We

shall show [James and Stein (1961)] that the sample mean is inadmissible by
92 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VEcrOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

displaying an alternative estimator that has a smaller expected loss for every
mean vector IJ.. We assume that the nonnal distribution sampled has covari-
ance matrix proportional to I with the constant of proportionality known. It
will be convenient to take this constant to be such that Y = (1 / N)E~ '" 1 Xa = X
has the distribution N(IJ.. I). Then the expected loss or risk of the estimator
Y is simply GIIY - 1J.1I2 = tr 1= p. The estimator proposed by James and Stein
is (essentially)

(2) - 2 ) (y-v)+v,
lIy-v

where v is an arbitrary flxed vector and p;;::: 3. This estimator shrinks the
observed y toward the specified v. The amount of shrinkage is negligible if y
is very different from v and is considerable if y is close to v. In this sense v
is a favored point

Theorem 3.5.1. With respect to the loss function (1). the risk of the estima-
tor (2) is less than the risk of the estimator Y for p ;;:: 3.

We shall show that the risk of Y minus the risk of (2) is positive by
applying the following lemma due to Stein (1974).

Lemma 3.5.1. If f(x) is a function such that

(3) f(b) - f(a) = fbf'(X) dx

a

for all a and b (a < b) and if

( 4)

then

oo 1 joo f'(x) 1
J
I2
(5) f(x)(x- 8)-e-"2(x-(J) dx=
_00 V27r _00
3.5 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN 93

Proof of Lemma. We write, he left-hand side of (5) as

OO 1 I 2
(6) f9
[f(x) -f(8)](x- 8)-e-,(x-6) dx
'/27r

9 1
+
f
I '
[f(x) -f(O)](x- 8)-e-~(x-ln- dx
-00 /27r

OOfXf'(y)(x - 8)-e-,(J.-e)
1 I 1
=
f9 9 /27r
dydx

9 fe f'(y)(x - 1 '( x-e )2 dydx

-
f-00 x
O)-e-~
/27r

OOfOOf'(y)(x - O)-e-!(x-tJ)
1
f
2
= dxdy I

9 Y /27r

which yields the right-hand side of (5). Fubini's theorem justifies the in ter-
change of order of integration. (See Problem 3.22.) •

The lemma can also be derived by integration by parts in special cases.

Proof of Theorem 3.5.1. The difference in risks is

~ $.\.~ Pi - 1'.)' - ;t [(Y, -1',) - 11:":-~I' (Y, - n

.,)

= $ f2 P- 2 ;. (Y _ )( Y _ v) _ (p - 2)1 }
fL\ IIY-vIl2 j":; I J-L, I I IIY'-vIl2'
94 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Now we use Lemma 3.5.1 with

.\",- V,
p , f' (Y,) = ---::'""p--~

E (Y, - v,) 2 E (y, - V,)

2

J=I J=I

[For p ~ 3 the condition (4) is satisfied.) Then (7) is

(9) ~R( )-,sf 2( -2){-.[ 1 _2(y,-V i )2j_(P-2)2}

jJ. - 11\ P j:; IIY-vIl 2 II1'-vIl 4 IIY-v\l2
2 1
= (p - 2) GfJ. 2 > O. •
!lY-vll
This theorem states that } is inadmissible for estimating jJ. when p ~ 3,
!liner the e~timator (2) has a smaller ri~k for every jJ. (regardless of the choice
of 1.').
The risk is the sum of the mean squared errors G[m/(Y) - ,uY. Since
Y1•••• , Yp are independent and only the distribution of ~ depends on ,up it is
puzzling that the improved estimator uses all the ~'s to estimate ,u,; it seems
that irrelevant information is being used. Stein explained the phenomenon by
arguing that the sample distance squared of Y from v, that is, IIY - v1l 2,
overestimates the squared distance of jJ. from .' and hence that the estimator
Y could be improved by bringing it nearer v (whatever v is). Berger (1980a),
following Brown, illustrated by Figure 3.4. The four points x p x 2 , X 3' X 4
represent a spherical distribution centered at jJ.. Consider the effects of
shrinkage. The average distance of m(x t ) and m(x 3 ) from jJ. is a little greater
than that of XI and x 3 , but m(x 2 ) and m(x 4 ) are a little closer to jJ. than x 2
and X.j are if the shrinkage is a certain amount. If p = 3, there are two mure
points (not on the line v, jJ.) that are shrunk closer to jJ..

mLxal
vr-------~~----~----~------~-------

Figure 3.4. Effect of shrinkage.

3.5 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN 9S

The risk of the estimator (2) is

(10)

where IIf - .... 11 2 has a noncentral X2.distribution with p degrees of freedom

and noncentrality parameter II .... - .... 112. The farther .... is from .... , the less the
improvement due to the James-Stein estimator, but there is always some
improvement. The density of Ilf - .... 11 2 = V, say, is (28) of Section 3.3.3, where
1'2 = II .... - .... 112. Then

(11) 1/ 1 = 1/2V- 1
... lIf- .... T

=e 2 - -,II} ; . (1'4
- .t....
2
) f3 _ _-;-;-1_--::-100
+ f-!) 0 V
2 +n - 2
lp
e
_!v d
v
~-o
'" 2
f3 t-'

=e

= le-
2
£ )f3_-:--_
~-o
(1'2
f3!( + f3-1)
1_ _

for p 2 3. Note that for .... = .... , that is, 1'2 = 0, (11) is 1/(p - 2) and the mean
squared error (10) is 2. For large f. the reduction in risk is considerable.
Table 3.2 gives values of the risk for p = 10 and u 2 = 1. For example, if
1'2 = II .... - .... 11 2 is 5, the mean squared error of the James-Stein estimator is
8.86, compared to 10 for the natural estimator; this is the case jf Jii - V t =
1/12 = 0.707, i = 1, ... ,10, for instance.

Table 3.2t. Avel1lge Mean Squared Error of the

James-Stein Estimator for p = 10 and (J' 2. -=: 1
,.2 = lip, v
0.0 2.00
0.5 4.78
1.0 6.21
2.0 7.5J
3.0 8.24
4.0 8.62
5.0 .8.86
6.0 9.03

t From Efron and Morris (1977).

 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

An obvious question in using an estimator of this class is how to choose

the vector v toward which the observed mean vector is shrunk; any v yields
an estimator better than the natural one. Ho~ever, as seen from Table 3.2,
the improvement is small if II .... - vII is very large. Thus, to be effective some
knowledge of the position of .... is necessary. A disadvantage of the procedure
is that it is not objective; the choice of v is up to the investigator.
A feature of the estimator we have been studying that seems disadvanta-
geous is that for small values of !If - vII. the multiplier of f - v is negative;
that is, the estimator m(Y) is in the direction from v opposite to that of Y.
This disadvantage can be overcome and the estimator improved by replacing
°
the factor by when the factor is negative.

Definition 3.5.1. For any function g(u), let

(12) g(u)~O,

=0, g(u) <0.

Lemma 3.5.2. When X is distributed according to N( .... , 1),

Proof. The right-hand side of (13) minus the left-hand side is

(14)

plus 2 times

(15) SfL ....'X{g+ (IIXII) - g(IIXII)]

00 00

=1I .... lIf_ ••• f_ooY1{g+(lIyll) -g(IIyII)]

oo

. 1
(21T)iP
1 exp { t[ f: yl-
t 1
2y 1 1l .... 11 + 11 .... 11
2
]) dy,

where y' =x'P, (11 ....11,0, ... ,0) = ....'p, and PP' =1. [The first column of P is
(1/II .... ID ..... ] Then (15) is 11 .... 11 times

(16) e-tllfLII2f~00'" J~oofoooYl[g+(IlYII) -g(lIyll)][ellfLIIY'-e-lifLIIY1]

1
--,,..-e
(21T)iP
i
'Ef, 2
-IY, du du ... dy
:.rl 'J2 p
~ °
(by replacing YI by -YI for Yl < 0). •
3.5 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN 97

Theorem 3.5.2. The estimator

(17) m+(Y)=(1- P-2 1 )+(y-V)+V

liy - vll~

has smaller risk thay. m(y) defined by (2) and is minimax.

Proof. In Lemma 3.5.2, let g(u) = 1 - (p - 2)/u 2 and X = Y - v, and

replace j.I. by j.I. - v. The second assertion in the theorem follows from
Theorem 3.4.6. •

The theorem shows that m(Y) is not admissible. However, it is known that
m+(Y) is also not admissible, but it is believed that not much further
improvement is possible.
This approach is easily extended to the case where one observes x I' ••• , x,.,
from N(j.I., I) with loss function L(j.I., m) = (m - j.I.)/I -I(m - j.I.). Let I =
CC' for some nonsingular C, xQ = Cx!, a = 1, ... , N, j.I. = Cj.I.*, and
L*(m*, j.I.*) = IIm* - j.I.* 112. Then xi, ... , x~ are observations from N(j.I.*, 1),
and the problem is reduced to the earlier one. Then

( 18)
p-2 )+ _
( 1- N(x-v)'I-l(i-v) (x-v)+v

is a minimax estimator of j.I..

3.5.3. Estimation for a General Known Covariance Matrix and an

Arbitrary Quadratic Loss Function
Let the parent distribution be N(j.I., I), where I is known, and let the loss
function be

( 19)

where Q is an arbitrary positive definite matrix which reflects the relative

importance of errors in different directions. (If the loss function were
singular, the dimensionality of x could be reduced so as to make the loss
ma1.rix nonsingular.) Then the sample mean i has the distribution
N(j.I.,(1/N)!,) and risk (expected loss)

which is constant, not depending on j.I..

98 ESTIMA.TION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Several estimators that improve on x have been proposed. First we take

up an estimator proposed independently bv Berger (l975) and Hudson
(1974).

Theorem 3.5.3. Let /'( z ). 0 :5 ::: < ce, he II /lOl1dccreasing differentiable func-
tion such that 0.::; /,(z):::;; 2(p - 2). Then for p ~ 3

hils smaller risk than x and is minimax.

Proof. There exists a matrix C such that C'QC = I and (lIN)!, = CI1C'
where Jl is diagonal with diagonal elements 0 1 ~ O2 ~ .,. ~ Op > 0 (Theorem
A.2.2 of the Appendix). Let x = Cy + v and j.L = Cj.L* + v. Then y has the
distribution N(j.L*, 11), and the transformed loss function is

(22) C(m*, fJ..*) =:: (m* - j.L* )'(m* - j.L*) = Ilm* - fJ..*1I2.

Thr..: r..:stimalor (2]) of fJ.. is tranSrmlllr..:J to thr..: r..:stimator of fJ..* = C-1(fJ.. - v),

(23)

We now proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.5.1. The difference in risks

betvv'een y and m~' is

(24)

Since r(z) is differentiable, we use Lemma 3.5.1 with (x - IJ) = (Yi - I-Lt )0.
and

( 25)

(26)
3.5 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN 99

Then

(27)
y
tlR( *)=G*{2( _2)r(y,,&-2 ) +4r'(y',&-2y)- r2 y',&-2
... ... P Y',& 2 Y Y' ,& - Y

since r(y' ,&-2y ) S 2(p - 2) and r'(y' ,&-2y ) ~ O. •

Corollary 3.S.1. For p ~ 3

(28)

f min[p-2,N 2 (x-v)''I-IQ- 1I [(i-v)] _I _I) _

\1- N(x-v)'I-1Q-1'I-1(X-v) Q 'I (x-v)+v

has smaller risk than X and is minimax.

Proof. the function r(z) = min(p - 2, z) is differentiable except at z =

p - 2. The function r(z) can be approximated arbitrarily clo~ely by a differ~
entiable function. (For eXHmple. the corner at z = p - 2 can be smoothed by
a circular arc of arbitrary small radius') We shall not give the details of the
proof. •

In canonical form y is shrunk by a scalar times a diagonal matrix. The

larger the variance of a component is, the less the effect of the shrinkage.
Berger (1975) has proved these results for a more general density, that is.
for a mixture of nor.nals. Berger (1976) has also proved in the case of
normality that if

z laU-W-C+I e- iuz du
(29) r( z) = --=.0_ _ _ _ __

fot:ru iP - e ~uz du
C

for 3 - tp s c < 1 + tp, where a is the smallest characteristic root of IQ,

then the estimator m given by (21) is minimax, is admissible if c < 2, and is
proper Bayes if c < 1.
Another approach to minimax estimators has been introduced by Bhat-
tacharya (1966). Lel C be such that C- 1 (1/N)I(C- I ). = I and C'QC = Q*.
which is diagonal with diagonal elements qi ~ q~ ~ ... ~ q; > O. Then y =
100 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

c- I X has the distribution N(fL*, 1), and the loss function is

p
(30) L* (m*, fL*) = E qt(m; - J.Ln 2
i=l
p p
= E E D:j(m; - J.Ln 2

i=1 j=i

p j
= E D:, E (mf - J.L'!)2
,= 1 i= 1
p
= E D:jllm*(J) - fL*U)\l2,
j= 1

where D:j=qj-qj+I' j=1, ... ,p-1, D:p=q;, m*U)=(mj, ... ,mj)', and
fL* U) = ( J.Li, ... , J.Lj)', j = 1, ... , p. This decomposition of the loss function
suggests combining minimax estimators of the vectors fL*U>, j = 1, ... , p. Let
y<n= (YI'''''Y/'
Theorem 3.5.4. If h(J)(y(f)) = [h\J)(yU»), . .. , h)j)(y(j»)], is a minimax esti-
matorof fL*U) under the loss function IIm*(j)- fL*U)1I 2, j= 1, ... ,p, then
1 p
(31) -=!ED:,h~,)(y(J»), i=1, ... ,p,
q. j=1

is a minimax estimator of J.Li,·· ., J.L;.

Proof First consider the randomized estimator defined by

(32) j = i, ... ,p,

for the ith component. Then the risk of this estimator is

p p P D:
(33) E qj $11-' [Gi ( Y) - J.L;]2 = E qt E -:t $11-* [h~J)( yU») - J.Li] 2
i=1 1=1 j=i q.
P j
= E D:, E $11-* [ h~j)( y(f») - J.L; ]2
j= 1 i= 1

P
= E D:, $1I-.llh U)( y<J») - fL*(j)1I 2
j=l

P P
::; E D:,j = E qj
j-I j= 1

= $11-' L* (Y, fL*)* ,

and hence the estimator defined by (32) is minimax.
3.6 ELUPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 101

Since the expected value of G.(Y) with respect to (32) is (31) and the loss
function is convex, the risk of the estimator (31) is less than that of the
randomized estimator (by Jensen's inequality). •

3.6. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

3.6.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Let x I' ... , X N he N ( = n + 1) independent obsetvations on a random vector
X with density I AI- ~g[(xQ - l' ). A - I (x" - v )1. The density of the sample is
N
(1) I AI-1 N
r[ g[ (x - v )' A-I (x - v)].
Q=I

The sImple mean i and covariance matrix S = O/n)[L~=l(XIl' - j..lXX" - j..l)'

-- N(i - j-L)(i - j-L)'] are unbiased estimators of the mean j..l = v and the
covariance matrix I = [J;' R2 /p] A, where R2 = (x - v)' A -l(X - v).

Theorem 3.6.1. The covariaflces of the mean and covanallce of u sample oj

N from I AI- 19[(x - v)' A -I(X - v)l with J'.'R~ < 00 are

(2) (f;'(X- j-L)(i-j..l)' = ~I,

(3) cC ( S,) - O".})( i - j-L) = 0, i,j=l. ... ,p.

Lemma 3.6.1. The second-order moments of the elemeflts of S are

. 1 K
(5) GSi,Skf = OJ} uk( + n ( O"{k Ojl + 0".1 O")k) + N ( O"j) O"k{ + O"/~ O"}I + O"iI O"}k) ,

i,j.k,l, = l, .... p

Proof of Lemma 3.6.1. We have

N
(6) cC L (x. Q - IL,)(X),,- IL})(X~{3- 1-I-~)(s'f3- ILl)
Q, f3"" [
= N cC(x jQ - IL,)(X}" - IL})(X~" - I-I-d( x la - 1-1-1)
+ N( N - 1) g (x I Q - IL, )( x}Q - IL}) # ( x ~ f3 - I-I-d ( x I f3 - 1-1-1)

= N(1 -I- K)( 0".) O"kl + O"jk O"}I + 0",1 O"}~) + N( N - 1) O",} O"u.
102 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

.'1
1 ~'
=-~'
N'2 E (XJ a - iLJ( Xl (3 - iLl )( Xkl - iLl )( X,6 - iLl)
(I:, {J. y. 6'= 1

N 1 N
( 8) cf E (XICC - iL,)( X}U - iL}) N E (Xk{J - iLd (Xll - IL-r)
a~l {J.,'=l

It will be convenient to use more matrix algebra. Define vec B, B ® C (the

Kronecker product), and Kmll (the commutator matrix) by

~cB-vec(bl.···.b.) ~ (H
( to)

(11 ) Kmn vee R = vee B'.

See. e.g., Magnus and Neudecker (1979) or Section A.5 of the Appendix. We
can rewrite (4) as

( 12) C ( vee S) = G ( vee S - vee I ) ( vee S - vee I) ,

Theorem 3.6.2

( 13)
3.6 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 103

This theorem follows from the central limit theorem for independent
identically distributed random vectors (with finite fourth moments). The
theorem forms the basis for large-sample inference.

3.6.2. Estimation of tb e Kurtosis Parameter

To apply the large-sample distribution theory derived for normal distribu-
tions to problems of inference for elliptically contoured distributions it is
necessary to know or estimate the kurtosis parameter K. Note that

Since x.Eo, JL and S.Eo, I,

N
(15) ~ E [(xa _x)'S-I(xa - X)]2 ~ p(p + 2)(1 + K).
a=!

A consistent estimator of K is

( 16)

Mardia (1970) proposed using M to form a consistent estimator of K.

3.6.3. Maximum Likelihood Estimation

We have considered using S as an estimator of I = ($ R2 /p) A. When the
parent distribution is normal, S is the sufficient statistic invariant with
respect to translations and hence is the efficient unbiased estimator. Now we
study other estimators.
We consider first the maximum likelihood estimators of JL and A when
the form of the density gO is known. The logarithm of the likelihood
function is

(17)
104 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECTOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

The derivatives of log L with respect to the components of f.L are

(18)

Setting the vector of derivatives equal to 0 leads to the equation

(19)
f: g'I(xa-~)'~-I(Xa-fL)]x =" f: g'I(x(f-~)'~-I(xQ-~)].
a=1 g[(x Q
-
1
fL)'A- (x Q- ~)] Q f.L Q=[ g[(x Q
- ~)'A-I(XQ- ~)T
Setting equal to 0 the derivatives of log L with respect to the elements of
A-I gives

N ' [( " )' A-I ( " )]

( 20) A= _ 2 ~ g X f.L" X f.L (X _") (X _")'.
N a=[
Q -

'-' g [( XQ _"f.L ) 'A- 1 ( XQ _ "f.L

Q -

)1 Q f.L Q f.L

The estimator A
is a kind of weighted average of the rank 1 matrices
(xQ
~XxQ - ~)'. In the normal case the weights are liN. In most cases
-

(19) and (20) cannot be solved explicitly, but the solution may be approxi-
mated by iterative methods.
The covariance matrix of the limiting normal distribution of -IN (vec A-
vec A) is

where
p( p + 2)
(22)
O'[g = 4,s[g'(R:J.. 212 '
R
g(R2)

20'1g(1 - O'lg)
(23) 0' 2g = 2 + P (1 - (T 1g) •

See Tyler (1982).

3.6.4. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Let

(24)
3.6 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 105

be an N X P random matrix with density g(Y'Y) = g(L~= I y" y~). Note lhat
the density g(Y'Y) is invariant with respect to orthogonal transformations
y* :::: ON Y. Such densities are known as left spherical matrix densities. An
example is the density of N observations from NCO,lp)'

(25)

In this example Y is also right spherical: YOp g, Y. When Y is both left

spherical and right spherical, it is known as spherical. Further, if Y has lhe
density (25), vee Y is spherical; in general if Y has a density, the density is of
tr..e form

(26) g(t· Y'Y) ~ g l.~, ,~y,'. ) ~ g(tr YY')

= g [ (vee Y)' vee Y] = g [ (vee Y')' vee y,] .

We call this model vector-sphedcal. Define

(27) x= YC' + E tV jJ.: ,

"here C' A - I C = lp and E'N = 0, ... , n
Since (27) is equivalent to Y =
(X - EN f-L')(C')- I and (C')-I C- I = A - I, the matrix X has the density

(28) IAI ~NI2g[tr(X - ENf-L') A-I(X - ENf-LT]

~ IA I - N /2 g [.~l (x« - fL)' A- I(

x" - fL) ].

From (26) we deduce that vee Y has the representation

d
(29) vee Y= R vee U,

where w = R2 has the density

~NJ1
(30) r(~PI2) w1N p-l g(w),

vee U has the uniform distribution on L~= I L;= I u;Q = 1, and R and vee U are
independent. The covariance matrix of vee Y is

(31)
106 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Since vec FGH = (H' ® F)vec G for any conformable matrices F, G, and H,
we can write (27) as

(32)

Thus

(33)
$R2
(34) -€(vec X) = (C ® IN )-€(vec Y)( C' (~IN) = Np A ® IN'

(35) $( rOW of X) = JI-',

$R2
(36) -€(row of X') = Np A.

The rows of X are uncorrelated (though not necessarily independent), From

(32) we obtain

(37) vec X 4. R ( C ® IN) vec U + JI- ® EN'

(38) X4. RUC' + ENJI-'.

Since X - EN JI-' = (X - E NX') + E NC¥ - JI-)' and E'N(X - E NX') = 0, we can

write the density of X as

( 39 ) 1 AI - N /2 g [tr A - [ ( x - EN x') ,( X - EN X') + N ( x - JI-)' A - [ ( x - JI-)] ,

where x = (l/N)X' E N' This shows that a sufficient set of statistics for JI- and
A is x and nS = (X - ENX')'(X - ENX'), as for the normal distribution. The
maximum likelihood estimators can be derived from the following theorem,
which will be used later for other models.

Theorem 3.6.3. Suppose the m-component vector Z has the density

I'l>l - ~h[(z - v)' ~ - [(z - v)], where w ~m h( w) has a finite positive maximum at
w" and ~ is a positive definite matrix. Let n be a set in the space of (v, ~)
such that if (v, ~) En then (v, c ~) En for all c > O. Suppose that on the
basis of an observation z when h( w) = const e- tw (i.e., Z has a normal
distribution) the maximum likelihood estimator (ii, <1» En
exists and is uniqt..e
with 'I> positive definite with probability 1. Then the maximum likelihood
estim ator of ( v, ~) for arbitrary h(·) is

'" - A m-
( 40) v=v, '1>= -~
wh '
3.6 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 107

and t~ maximum of the likelihood is 14>1 ih(w l, ) [Anderson, Fang, and Hsu
(1986)].

Proof. Let 'It = 14>1- 11 m 4> and

(41) .... z-v )_{z-v)',\Irl(z-v)

- z-v ),ih-I(
d -( - .
14>lllm

Then (v, 4» E n and I'ltl = 1. The likelihood is

(42)

Under normality h(d) = (27r)- ~me- ~d, and the maximum of (42) is attained
at v = ii, 'It = 'It I~I -11 m ~, and d = m. For arbitrary h(') the maximum
=.!:

v
of (42) is attained at = ii, B= ii, and J = who Then the maximum likeli~
hood estimator of 4> is

( 43)

Then (40) follows from (43) by use of (41). •

Theorem 3.6.4. Let X (N Xp) have the density (28), where wiNPg(w) has
a finite positive maximum at Wg' Then the maximum likelihood estimators of IL
and A are

(44) iJ.=x,

Corollary 3.6.1. Let X (N X p) have the density (28). Then the maximum
likelihood estimators of v, (Au,'''' App), and PiP i,j=l, .•. ,p, are x,
(p/wg)(aw ... ,a pp ), andai}/Valian" i,j= l, ... ,p.

Proof. Corolhlry 3.6.1 follows from Theorem 3.6.3 and Corollary 3.2.1. •

Theorem 3.6.5. Let j(X) be a vector-valued function of X (N Xp) such

that

(45)
108 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

for all v £lnd

(46) f(cX) =f(X)

for all c. Then the distribution of f(X) where X h2s an arbitrary density (28) is
the same as its distribution where X has the normal density (28).

Proof Substitution of the representation (27) into f(X) gives

( 47)

by (45). Let f(X) = h(vec X). Then by (46), h(cX) = h(X) and

(48) f(YC') =h[CC®IN)vec Y] =h[R(C®IN)vecU]

= h [ CC ® IN) vee U] . •

Any statistic satisfying (45) and (46) has the same distribution for all g(.).
Hence) if its distribution is known for the normal case, the distribution is
valid for all elliptically contoured distributions.
Any function of the sufficient set of statistics that is translation-invariant,
that is, that satisfies (45), is a function of S. Thus inference concerning 'I can
be based on S.

Corollary 3.6.2. Let f(X) be a vector-valued function of X (N X p) such

that (46) holds for all c. Then the distribution of f(X) where X has arbitrary
density (28) with IL = 0 is the same as its distribution where X has normal density
(28) with IL = O.

Fang and Zhang (990) give this corollary as Theorem 2.5.8.

PROBLEMS

3.1. (Sec. 3.2) Find ii, t, and (PI) for the data given in Table 3.3, taken from
Frets (1921).

3.2. (Sec. 3.2) Verify the numerical results of (21).

3,3, (Sec. 3.2) Compute ii, t, S, and P for the following pairs of observations:
(34,55),(12,29), (33, 75), (44, 89), (89,62), (59, 69),(50,41),(88, 67). Plot the obser~
vations.

3.4. (Sec. 3.2) Use the facts that I C* I = nAp tr c* = EAI , and C* = I if Al
Ap = 1, where A., ... , Ap are the characteristic roots of C*, to prove Lemma
3.2.2. [Hint: Use f as given in (12).}
PROBLEMS 109

Table 3.3 t • Head Lengths and Breadths of Brothers

Head Head Head Head
Length, Breadth, Length, Breadth,
First Son. First Son, Second Son, Second Son,
xl X2 Xl x4

191 155 179 145

195 149 201 152
181 148 185 149
183 153 188 149
176 144 171 142
208 157 192 152
189 150 190 149
197 159 189 152
188 152 197 159
192 150 187 151
179 158 186 148
183 147 174 147
174 150 185 152
190 159 195 157
188 151 187 158
163 13" 161 130
195 15:i 183 158
186 153 173 148
181 145 182 146
175 140 165 137
192 154 185 152
174 143 178 147
176 139 176 143
197 167 200 158
190 163 187 150

tThese data, used in examples in the first edition of this book, came from Rao
(1952), p. 2_45. Izenman (1980) has indicated some entries were apparenrly
incorrectly copied from Frets (1921) and corrected them (p. 579).

3.S. (Sec. 3.2) Let be the body weight (in kilograms) of a cat and
Xl X2 the heart
weight (in grams). [Data from Fisher (1947b)']

(a) In a !'lample of 47 female cats the relevant data are

110.9 ) '" I (265.13 1029.62 )

2X" = ( 432.5 ' ~xa xa = 1029.62 4064.71 .

Find iJ., i, S, and ji.

110 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfORAND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Table 3.4. Four Measurements on Three Species of Iris (in centimeters)

Iris selosa Iris verSicolor Iris uirginica
Sepal Sepal Petal Petal Sepal Sepal Petal Petal Sepal Sepal Petal Petal
length width length width length width length width length width length width
5.1 3.5 1.4 0.2 7.0 3.2 4.7 1.4 6.3 3.3 6.0 2.5
4.9 3.0 1.4 0.2 6.4 3.2 4.5 1.5 5.8 2.7 5.1 1.9
43 3.2 1.3 0.2 6.9 3.1 4.9 1.5 7.1 3.0 5.9 2.1
4.6 3.1 1.5 0.2 5.5 2.3 4.0 U 6.3 2.9 5.6 1.8
5.0 3.6 1.4 0.2 6.5 2.8 4.6 1.5 6.5 3.0 5.8 2.2
5,4 3.9 1.7 0.4 5.7 2.8 4.5 1.3 7.6 3.0 6.6 2.1
4.6 3A 1.4 0.3 6.3 3.3 4.7 1.6 4.9 2.5 4.5 1.7
5.0 3.4 1.5 0.2 4.9 2.4 3.3 1.0 7.3 2.9 6.3 1.8
4.4 2.9 1.4 0.2 6.6 2.9 4.6 1.3 6.7 2.5 5.8 1.8
4.9 3.1 1.5 0.1 5.2 2.7 3.9 1.4 7.2 3.6 6.1 2.5
5.4 3.7 1.5 0.2 5.0 2.0 35 1.0 6.5 3.2 5.1 2.0
4.8 3.4 1.6 0.2 5.9 3.0 4.2 1.5 6.4 2.7 5.3 1.9
4.8 3.0 1,4 0.1 6.0 2.2 4.0 1.0 6.8 3.0 5.5 2.1
4.3 3.0 1.1 0.1 6.1 2.9 4.7 1.4 5.7 2.5 5.0 2.0
5.8 4.0 1.2 0.2 5.6 2.9 3.6 1.3 5.8 2.8 5.1 2.4
5.7 4.4 1.5 0.4 6.7 3.1 4.4 1.4 6.4 3.2 5.3 2.3
5.4 3.9 1.3 0.4 5.6 3.0 45 1.5 6.5 3.0 55 1.8
.5 .1 3.5 1.4 0.3 5.8 2.7 4.1 1.0 7.7 3.8 6.7 2.2
5.7 3.8 1.7 0.3 6.2 2.2 4.5 1.5 7.7 2.6 6.9 2.3
5.1 3.8 1.5 0.3 5.6 2.5 3.9 1.1 6.0 2.2 5.0 1.5
SA 3.4 1.7 0.2 5.9 3.2 4.8 1.8 6.9 3.2 5.7 2.3
5.1 3.7 1.5 0.4 6.1 2.8 4.0 1.3 5.6 2.8 4.9 2.0
4.6 3.6 1.0 0.2 6.3 2.5 4.9 1.5 7.7 2.8 6.7 2.0
5.1 3.3 1.7 0.5 6.1 2.8 4.7 1.2 6.3 2.7 4.9 1.8
4.8 3.4 1.9 0.2 6.4 2.9 4.3 1.3 6.7 3.3 5.7 2.1

5.0 3.0 1.6 0.2 6.6 3.0 4.4 1.4 7.2 3.2 6.0 1.8
5.0 3.4 1.6 0.4 6.8 2.8 4.8 1.4 6.2 2.8 4.8 1.8
5.2 3.5 1.5 0.2 6.7 3.0 5.0 1.7 6.1 3.0 4.9 1.8
5.2 3.4 1.4 0.2 6.0 2.9 4.5 1.5 6.4 2.8 5.6 2.1
4.7 3.2 1.6 0.2 5.7 2.6 3.5 1.0 7.2 3.0 5.8 1.6

4.8 3.1 1.6 0.2 5.5 2.4 3.8 1.1 7.4 2.8 6.1 1.9
504 3.4 1.5 0.4 5.5 2.4 3.7 1.0 7.9 3.8 6.4 2.0
5.2 4.1 1.5 0.1 5.8 2.7 3.9 1.2 6.4 2.8 5.6 2.2
5.5 4.2 1.4 0.2 6.0 2.7 5.1 1.6 6.3 2.8 5.1 1.5
4.9 3.1 1.5 0.2 5.4 3.0 4.5 1.5 6.1 2.6 5.6 1.4
5.0 3.2 1.2 0.2 6.0 3.4 4.5 1.6 7.7 3.0 6.1 2.3
5.5 3.5 1.3 0.2 6.7 3.1 4.7 1.5 6.3 3.4 5.6 2.4
4.9 3.6 1.4 0.1 6.3 2.3 4.4 1.3 6.4 3.1 5.5 1.8
4.4 3.0 1.3 0.2 5.6 3.0 4.1 1.3 6.0 3.0 4.8 1.8
5.1 3.4 1.5 0.2 55 25 4.0 1.3 6.9 3.1 5.4 2.1
PROBLEMS 111

Table 3.4. (C(Jntinueti)

Iris setosa Iris versicolor Iris uirginica
Sepal Sepal Petal Petal Sepal Sepal Petal Petal Sepal Sepal Petal Petal
length width length width length width length width length width length width

5.0 3.5 1.3 0.3 5.5 2.6 4.4 1.2 6.7 3.1 5.6 2.4
4.5 2.3 1.3 0.3 6.1 3.0 4,6 1.4 6.9 3.1 5.1 2.3
4.4 3.2 1.3 0.2 5.8 2.6 4.0 1.2 5.8 2.7 5.1 1.9
5.0 3.5 1.6 0.6 5.0 2.3 3.3 1.0 6.8 3.2 5.9 2.3
5.1 3.8 1.9 0.4 5.6 2.7 4.2 1.3 6.7 3.3 ;).7 1..5
4.8 3.0 1.4 0.3 5.7 3.0 4.2 1.2 6.7 3.0 5.2 2.1
5.1 3.8 1.6 0.2 5.7 2.9 4.2 1.3 6.3 2.5 5.J 1.9
4.6 3.2 1.4 0.2 6,2 2.9 4.3 1.3 6.5 3.0 5.2 2.0
5.3 3.7 1.5 0.2 5.1 2.5 3.0 1.1 6.2 3.4 5,4 2.3
5.0 3.3 1.4 0.2 5.7 2.8 4.1 1.3 5.9 3.0 5.1 1.8

(b) In a sample of 97 male cats the relevant data are

281.3) 3275.55 )
[xu = ( 1098.3 ' 13056.17 .

Find {i., :I, S, and p.

3.6. Find {i., 2, and ( Pil) for Iris setosa from Table 3.4, taken from Edgar Anderson's
famous iris data [Fisher (1936)J.

3.7. (Sec. 3.2) Invariance of the sample co"elation coefficient. Prove that T12 is an
invariant characteristic of the sufficient statistics i and S of a bivariate sample
under location and scale transformations (x1a = b/xia + C il b, > 0, i = 1,2, a =
1, ' .. , N) and that every function of i and S that is invariant is a function of
T 12' [Hint: See Theorem 2.3.2.}

3.8. (Sec. 3.2) Prove Lemma 3.2.2 by induction. [Hint: Let HI = h II,

H,-
_(Hh' I _ 1
i=2, ... ,p,
(1)

and use Problem 2.36.]

3.9. (Sec. 7.2) Show that

N
N(~-l) E (xa -x13 )(xa -x13 Y= N~ 1 E (xa-i)(xa-xy·
a<~ a-I

(Note: When p = 1, the left-hand side is the average squared differences of the
observations.)
112 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

3.10. (Sec. 3.2) Estimation of I when fJ. is known. Show that if Xl'·'.' XN constitute
a sample from N(fJ., I) and fJ. is known, then (l/N)'f.~_l(Xa - fJ.Xxa - fJ.)' is
the maximum likelihood estimator of I.

3.11. (Sec. 3.2) Estimation of parameters of a complex normal distribution. Let

Z l' ... , Z N be N obseIVations from the complex normal distribu tions with mean
9 and covariance matrix P. (See Problem 2.64.)

(a) Show that the maximum likelihood estimators of 9 and Pare

A 1 N
9 =z= N E za'
a~1

(b) Show that z

has the complex normal distribution with mean 9 and covari-
ance matrix (l/N)P.
(c) Show that z
and P are independently distributed and that NP has the
distribution of 'f.~_ IWa Wa*, where WI"··' ~, are independently distributed,
each according to the complex normal distribution with mean 0 and covari-
ance matrix P, and n = N - 1.

3.12. (Sec. 3.2) Prove Lemma 3.2.2 by using Lemma 3.2.3 and showing N logl CI -
tr CD has a maximum at C = ND- l by setting the derivatives of this function
with respect to the elements of C = I -1 equal to O. Show that the function of C
tends to - 00 as C tends to a singular matrix or as one or mOre elements of C
tend to 00 and/or - 00 (nondiagonal elements); for this latter, the equivalent
of (13) can be used.

3.13. (Sec. 3.3) Let Xa be distributed according to N( 'YCa, I), a = 1, ... , N, where
'f.c;>O. Show that the distribution of g=(l/'f.c~)'f.caxa is N['Y,(l/'f.c~)I].
Show that E = 'f.a(Xa - gcaXXa - gc a )' is independently distributed as
'f.~::: Za Z~, where Zl' ... ' ZN are independent, each with distribution MO, I).
[Hint: Let Za = 'f.b a {3X{3' where b N {3 = c{3/ J'f.c~ and B is orthogonal.]

3.14. (Sec. 3.3) Prove that the power of the test in (19) is a function only of p and
[N 1N 2 /(N l + N2)](fJ.(I) - fJ.(2», I -1(fJ.(I) - fJ.(2»), given u.

3.15. (~ec.. 3.3) Efficiency of the mean. Prove that i is efficient for estimating fJ..

3.16. (Sec. 3.3) Prove that i and S have efficiency [(N - l)/N]P(I'+ll/2 for estimat-
ing fJ. and :t.

3.17. (Sec. J.2) Prove that Pr{IA I = O} = 0 for A defined by (4) when N > p. [Hint:
Argue that if Z! = (Zl' ... ,Zp), then IZ~ I "* 0 implies A = Z; Z; I +
'f.~':).HZaZ~ is positive definite. Prove PdlZjl =ZnIZj-11 +'f.!:IIZ,jcof(ZjJ)
= O} = 0 by induction, j = 2, ... , p.]
PROBLEMS 113

3.18. (Sec. 3.4) Prove

l-~(~+l:)-I = l:(~+.l:)-I.

~-~(~+l:)-I~=(~-I +l:-I)-I.

3.19. (Sec. 3.4) Prove (1/N)E~=I(Xa - J.lXX" - J.l)' is an unbiased estimator of I

when fl. is known.

3.20. (Sec. 3.4) Show that

:'-21. (Sec. 3.5) Demonstrate Lemma 3.5.1 using integration by parts.

3.22. (Sec. 3.5) Show that

fX 1f'(y)I--e-:()'-~)
f OOfOO\ f'(y)(x- B)--e-;(.'-O)
tly &
1 I : \
dxdy:.::
n
1
&
I :
dy,

(J J.'" \f'(y)(B-x)--e-,(\-H)
I ~ I \ d\'dy= J H I
1f'(Y)I--e-'(\-~)
I : dy.
J _00 _::0 & -x &
3.23. Let Z(k) = (Z;/kH, where i= 1, ... ,p, j= l.. .. ,q and k= 1.2..... be: a
sequence of random matrices. Let one norm of a matrix A be N1(A) =
max;.) mod(a'j)' and another he N::(A) == [,.) a~ = tr AA'. Some alternative
ways of defining stochastic convergence of Z(k) to B (p x q) are

(a) N1(Z(k) - B) converges stochastically to O.

(b) Nz{Z(k) - B) converges stochastically to 0, and
(c) Z;/k):- b;j converges stochastically to 0, i = 1, ... , p, j = 1, .... q.

Prove that these three definitions are equivalent. Note that the definirion of
X(k) converging stochastically 10Cl is thaI for every arhilrary positive 8 and r..
we can find K large enough so that for k > K

Pr{ IX( k) - a I < 8} > J- E.

3.24. (Sec. 3.2) Covariance matrices with linear structure [Anderson (1969)1. Let

'I
(i) l: = L. (]"~Gg.
~ II
 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN VECfOR AND THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

where GO, ...• Gq are given symmetric matrices such that there exists at least
one (q + l).. tuplet 0'0.0'1 ••••• O'q such that (i) is positive definite. Show that the
likelihood equations based on N observations are

(ii) g = 0.1, ... , q.

Show that an iterative (scoring) method can be based on

(iii) ~ i- -1 G i- -1 G .. (i) - ~ :. -1 G :. -1 A
L. tr -.-1 g-j-1 hO'h - N tr ':'j-1 g':'j-1 , g=0,1, ••• ,q,
iI-O

~
I
CHAPTER 4

The Distributions and Uses of

Sample Correlation Coefficients

4.1. INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 2, in which the multivariate normal distribution was introduced, it

was shown that a measure of dependence between two normal variates is the
correlation coefficient Pij = Ui/'; Uii Ujj' In a conditional distribution of
X1, ... ,Xq given X q + 1 =Xq+l""'Xp =x p , the partial correlation Pij.q+l, ...• p
measures the dependence between Xi and Xj' The third kind of correlation
discussed was the multiple correlation which measures the relationship
between one variate and a set of others. In this chapter we treat the sample
equivalents of these quantities; they are point estimates of the population
qU:Antities. The distributions of the sample correlalions are found. Tests of
hypotheses and confidence interva...s are developed,
In the cases of joint normal distributions these correlation coefficients are
the natural measures of dependence. In the popUlation they are the only
parameters except for location (means) and scale (standard deviations) pa-
rameters. In the sample the correlation coefficients are derived as the
reasonable estimates of th ~ popUlation correlations. Since the sample means
and standard deviations are location and scale estimates, the sample correla-
tions (that is, the standardized sample second moments) give all possible
information about the popUlation correlations. The sample correlations are
the functions of the sufficient statistics that are invariant with respect to
location and scale transformations; the popUlation correlations are the func-
tions of the parameters that are invariant with respect to these transforma-
tions.

An Introduction to Multivariate Stat.stical Analysis, Third Eiiition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

115
116 SAMPLE CORRE LATION COEFFICIENTS

In regression theory or least squares, one variable is considered random or

dependent, and the others fixed or independent. In correlation theory we
consider several variables as random and treat them symmetrically. If we
start with a joint normal distribution and hold all variables fixed except one,
we obtain the least squares model because the expected value of the random
variable in the conditional distribution is a linear function of the variables
held fixed. The sample regression coefficients obtained in least squares are
functions of the sample variances and correlations.
In testing independence we shall see that we arrive at the same tests in
either ca~( (i.e., in the joint normal distribution or in the conditional
distribution of least squares). The probability theory under the null hypothe·
sis is the same. The distribution of the test criterion when the null hypothesis
is not true differs in the two cases. If all variables may be considered random,
one uses correlation theory as given here; if only one variable is random,
one Ufes least squares theory (which is considered in some generality in
Chapter 8).
In Section 4.2 we derive the distribution of the sample correhtion coeffi·
cient, first when the corresponding popUlation correlation coefficient is 0 (the
two normal variables being independent) and then for any value of the
population coefficient. The Fisher z·transform yieldS a useful approximate
normal distribution. Exact and approximate confidence intervals are devel·
oped. In Section 4.3 we carry out the same program for partial correlations,
that is, correlations in conditional normal distributions. In Section 4.4 the
distributions and other properties of the sample multiple correlation coeffi~
cient are studied. In Section 4.5 the asymptotic distributions of these cor·
relations are derived for elliptically contoured distributions. A stochastic
representation for a class of such distributions is found.

4.2. CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE

4.2.1. The Distribution When the PopUlation Correlation Coefficient Is Zero;

Tests of the Hypothesis of Lack of Correlation
In Section 3.2 it was shown that if one has a sa-nple (of p·component vectors)
X l' ..• , X N from a normal distribution, the maximum likelihood estimator of
the correlation between X, and X J (two components of the random vector
X) is

( 1)
4.2 CORRElATION r.OEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 117

where Xja is the ith component of Xa and

(2)

In this section we shall find the distribution of 'I,when the population

correlation between X j and Xj is zero, and we shall see how to use the
sample correlation coefficient to test the hypothesis that the population
coefficient is zero.
For convenience we shall treat r 12; the same theory holds for each ',r
Since '12 depends only on the first two coordinates of each xu, to find the
distribution of '12 we need only consider the joint distribution of (x II' x:n ),
(X I2 , X 22 ), .•• ,(X 1N , X 2N ). We can reformulate the problems to be considered
here, therefore, in terms of a bivariate normal distribution. Let xi, .... x~, be
obselVation vectors from

(3)

We shall consider

( 4)

where
N
(5) a jj = ~ (Xja -x,)(Xja -x,), i.j= 1,2.
a=1

and Xj is defiqed by (2), Xjo being the ith component of x!.

From Section 3.3 we see that all' a 12 , and a 22 are distributed like
n
( 6) a" = ~ z,az,Q' i.j=1,2,
a=1

where n = N - 1, (zla' Z2J is distributed according to

(7)

and the pairs (zl\, z4 1 ),'· .,(ZIN' Z2N) are independently distributed.
118 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Figure 4.1

Define the n-component vector v, = (zr!"'" z,n)', i = 1,2. These two

vectors can be represented in an n-dimensional space; see Figure 4.1. The
correlation coefficient is the cosine of the angle, say 8, between v1 and v 2 ,
(See Section 3.2.) To find the distribution of cos 8 we shall first find the
distribution of cot 8. As shown in Section 3.2, if we let b = v'2V';v'llll, then
l'~ -- bl'l is orthogonal to L'I and

( 8)

If VI is fixed, we can rotate coordinate axes so that the first coordinate axis
lies along L'l. Then bV I has only the first coordinate different from zero, and
L'~ - bL't has this first coordinate equal to zero. We shall show that cot 8 IS
proportional to a t-variable when p = o.
We usc thL following lemma.

Lemma 4.2.1. IfYI , . · . , Yn are independently distributed, if Yo = (YY)', YP)')

has the dt:nsity flY), and if the conditional density of YP) given y~l) = y~1) is
J.( Ya(~11 }",tIl) , a -- 1"", n, th en ·m the con
' d'·
ltlOna I d·lstn'b'
utlOn oJ,.( y(2)
I " " , y(2)
n
given lTl = y\I), ... , y~l) = y~l), the random vectors y l(2), ••• , YP) are independent
and t Ile denslly . oJ,.( y(2)
<l IS Ya Ya , a -- 1, ... , n.
. f( (2)1 (I»)

Proof The marginal density of is I1~=1 fl(yi 1»), where fl(y~l»)

YI(l) •.•• , yn(l)

is the marginal density of y~ I), and the conditional density of YF), ... , y~2)
given l"1( I) = yjl), ... , y~l) = y~l) is

(9)
•
4.2 CORRElATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 119

Write V, = (Z;], ... , Z;,)', i = 1,2, to denote random vectors. The condi-
tional distribution of ZZa given Zla = z!a is N( {3z1a' O'Z), where {3 = fJlTz/ (It
and O'z = (Il(1 - pZ). (See Sei,;tion 2.5J The density of Vz given V[ = VI is
N( {3t'I' O'z1) since the ZZ<r are independent. Let b = V2VJV'IV t (= aZl/a ll ),
so that bV;(Vz bv1 ) = 0, and let U (VZ - bvl)'(Vz - bv l ) = ViVz - bZulv t
(= all - arz/au). Then cot tJ = b"";an/U. The rotation of coordinate axes
involves choosing an n X n orthogonal matrix C with first row (1/c)v~, where
Z_ ,
c - VtV t •
We now apply Theorem 3.3.1 ,vith Xa = ZZa. Let Ya = r.{>ca{>Zz{>, a =
1, ... , n. Then Y1, ••• , Y,i are independently normally distributed with vari-
ance 0' 2 and means

(10)

n n
(ll) GYa = 2: ca1' {3z 11' = {3c 2: Ca1'c l1' = 0, a:l=!.
y=! 1'= 1

We have b=r.;',=IZZ"ZI"/r.;',=IZt,, Cr.:~=IZ2crCl,.Ic2=YJC and, from

Lemma 3.3.1,

" n ~
(12) U= 2: Zia- b2 2: zta= 2: yaz _y l2
a=1 a I a=1

= "
'-' a'
y2
a 2

which is independent of b. Then U /0'2 has a xZ-distribution with n - 1

degrees of freedom.

Lemma 4.2.2. If (Z1a' Z20.)' a = 1, ... , n, are independent, each pair with
density (7), then the conditional distributions of b = r.~= 1 ZZo. Zla/r.~= 1 Z;o.
and U/O'2=r.:=I(ZZa-bZla)2/O'Z given Zla=z!o.' a=1, ... ,n, are
N( {3, 0'2 /c 2 ) (c 2 = r.:_ 1 zia) and X Z with n - 1 degrees of freedom, respec-
tively; and band U are independent.

If p = 0, then {3 0, and b is distributed conditionally according to

N(0,(I2/C2), and

(13)
120 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

has a conditional t-distribution with n - 1 degrees of freedom. (See Problem

4.27.) However, this random variable is

(14)

Thus .rn=T r IV1 - r2 has a conditional t-distribution with n - 1. degrees of

freedom. The density of t is

(15) rOn) (I + _t_2 )-!n,

rn-=Tr[Hn -1)]J;" n- 1

and the density of W = r I VI - r2 is

(16)

Since w = r(l- r2)- t, we have dwldr = (1- r2)- ~. Therefore the density of
r is (replacing n by N - 1)

(17)

It should be noted that (17) is the conditional density of r for vI fixed.

However, since (17) does not depend on v l • it is also the marginal density
of r.

Theorem 4.2.1. Let X I' ... , X N be independent, each with distribution

N( .... , I). If Pi! = 0, the density of rlJ defined by (0 is (17).

From (I7) we see that the density is symmetric about the origin. For
N> 4, it has a mode at r = 0 and its order of contact with the r-axis at ± 1 is
HN - 5) for N odd and IN -3 for N even. Since the density is even, the
odd moments are zerO; in particular. the mean is zero. The even moments
are found by integration (letting x = r2 and using the definition of the beta
function). That tCr 2m = nHN - O]r(m + 4)/{J;"n4(N - 0 + m]} and in
particular that the variance is 1/(N - 0 may be verified by the reader.
The most important use of Theorem 4.2.1 is to find significance points for
testing the hypothesis that a pair of variables are not correlated. Consider the
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 121

hypothesis

(IS)

for some particular pair (l, j). It would seem reasonable to reject this
hypothesis if the corresponding sample correlation coefficient were very
different from zero. Now how do we decide what we mean by "very
different"?
Let us suppose we are interested in testing H against the alternative
hypotheses P,} > O. Then we reject H if the sample correlation coefficient 'I}
is greater than some number '0' The probability of rejecting H when H is
true is

(19)

where kN(r) is (17), the density of a correlation coefficient based on N

observations. We choose ro so (19) is the desired significance level. If we test
H against alternatives PI} < 0, we reject H when r,} < -rD.
Now suppose we are interested in alternatives P,} *" 0; that is, P" may be
either positive or negative. Then we reject the hypothesis H if "} > 'lor
rij < -r,. The probability of rejection when H is true is

(20)

The number" is chosen so that (20) is the desired significance leveL

The significance points r, are given in many books, including Table VI of
Fisher and Yates (1942); the index n in Table VI is equal to our N - 2. Since
JN - 2 r I VI - r2 has the t-distribution with N - 2 degrees of freedom,
t-tables can also be used. Against alternatives P,} *" 0, reject H if

(21 )

where t N - 2 ( a) is the two-tailed significance point of the t-statistic with N - 2

degrees of freedom for significance level a. Against alternatives P,} > O.
reject H if

(22)
122 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

From (3) and (14) we see that IN - 2'1 VI _,2

is the proper statistic for
testing the hypothesis that the regression of V2 on l't is zero. In terms of the
original observation {x,....,}, we have

where b = L~=I(X.2" -x 2Xx 1Cl -xl)/L~=I(XIII -x l )2 is the least squares re-

gression coefficient of x ~" on x I,,' lL i~ seen that the test of PI2 = 0 is
equivalent to the test that the regression of X 2 on x I is zerO (i.e., that
Pl'!. (T.j (TI = 0).
To illustrate this procedure we consider the example given in Section 3.2.
L~t us test the null hypothesis that the effects of the two drugs are- uncorre-
lated against the alternative that they are positively correlated. We shall use
the 59c level of significance. For N = 10, the 5% significance point ('0) is
0.5494. Our observed correlation coefficient of 0.7952 is significant; we reject
the hypothesis that the effects of the two drugs are independent .

..1.2.2. Tbe Distribution When the Population Correlation Coefficient Is

Nonzero; Tests of Hypotheses and Confidence Intervals
To find the distribution of the sample correlation coefficient when the
population coefficient is different from zero, we shall first derive the joint
density of all. a 12 • and a 22 . In Section 4.2.1 we saw that, conditional on VI
held fIxed. the random variables b = al21au and UI (T2 = (a 22 - at2 / all)1 (T2
are distrihuted independently according to N( {3. (T 2 le 2 ) and the X2 -distribu-
tion with II - 1 degrees of freedom, respectively. Denoting the density of the
X 2-distribution by gIl _I(U), we write the conditional density of band U as
n(bl{3.(T2.la ll )gn_l(li/(T2)1(T.2. The joint density of VI. b, and U is
11(1'1 10, ITI~ [)n(bl {3. IT '2. lall )g" _l(al IT 2)1 (T2. The marginal density of
1
V;VI /(T12 = alll(Ti is gJu); that is. the density of all is

(24) all) f f n (vdO,(TII)dW,

1 g" ( -;;. = ,' ..
(T2 2
I 1 L'IL'I =1111

where dW is the proper volume element.

The integration is over the sphere V'IVI = a II; thus, dW is an element of
area on this sphere. (See Problem 7.1 for the use of angular coordinates in
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 123

defining dW.) Thus the joint density 0[' b, U, and all is

(25)

1
o
(26) a(b,u) 1- all =-
1
1a(a I2 , an) - -2~ 1
all

Thus the density of all' a 12' and an for all ~ 0, a 22 ~ 0, and all an - a~2 ;;::: 0
IS

(27)

where
124 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENI'S

The density can be written

(29)

for A positive definite, and. 0 otherwise. This is a special case of the Wishart
density derived in Chapter 7.
We want to find the density of

(30)

where arL = aLL 1a}, a~2 = a22 /0"22, and a72 = a L2/( 0"10"2)· The tra:tsformation
is equivalent to setting O"L = 0"2 = 1. Then the density of aLL' a22' and
r = a 12 /Ja ll a22 (da L2 = drJa ll a 22 ) is

(31)

where

aII ~ 2 pr';;:; ra;; + a22

(32) Q= 1 -p 2

To find the density of r, we must integrate (31) with respect to all and a22
over the range 0 to 00. There are various ways of carrying out the integration,
which result in different expressions for the density. The method we shall
indicate here is straightforward. We expand part of the exponential:

pr';;:; ,;a.;;]_ 00 (pr';;:; Ja22 f

(33) exp [ (1 -p 2) - E
a=O a!(1-p)
2 U

Then the density (31) is

(34)

.{exp[_ 2(1-aLL p2) ja(n+U)f2-1}{exp[_ 2(1-a22 p2) ja(n+U)f2-1}.

IL 22
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 125

Since

the integral of (34) (term-by-term integration is permissible) is

(36)
(1 - p2)tn2nV-;r(tn)r[~{n -1)1

.£a~O a
l{pr)"2
.(1 - p )
"r2[~{n+a)]2n+a(1_p~)II+a

(1- p2)in{1_r2)t(n-3) :;c (2pr)" 2 1

V-;rOn)r[Hn -1)] aL;-o a! r h{n + a)].

The duplication formula for the gamma function is

r{ z)( z + ~)
2z 1
(37) r(2z) =2 -
{;

It can be used to modify the constant in (36).

Theorem 4.2.2. The correlation coefficient in a sample of Nfrom a hwariate

normal distribution with correlation p is distributed with density

(38)

where n =N -1.

The distribution of r was first found by Fisher (1915). He also gave a~

another form of the density,

(39)

See Problem 4.24.

126 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

HotelHng (1953) has made an exhaustive study of the distribution of r. He

ha!' recommended the following form:

( 4,0)

. (1 - pr) -n + ~. F (I2,2";
I n + 2;1 1 +2 pr ) '

where

. . . _ ~ f( a + j) f( b + j) f( c) xi
( 41) F(a,b,c,x)- J~O f(a) f(b) f(c+j) j!

is a hypergeometric junction. (See Problem 4.25.) The series in (40) converges

more rapidly than the one in (38). Hotelling discusses methods of integrating
the density and also calculates moments of r.
The cumulative distribution of r,

(42) Pr{r s;;r*} =F(r*IN, p),

has been tabulated by David (1938) fort p= 0(.1).9, 'V= 3(1)25,50,100,200,

400, and r* = 1(.05)1. (David's n is Our NJ It is clear from the density (38)
that F(/'* IN, p) = 1 F( - r* IN, - p) because the density for r, P is equal to
the density for - r, - p. These tables can be used for a number of statistical
procedures.
First, we consider the problem of using a sample to test the hypothesis

(43) H: p= Po'

If the alternatives are p> Po' we reject the hypothesis if the sample correla-
tion coefficient is greater than ro, where ro is chosen so 1 - F(roIN, Po) = a,
t he significance level. If the alternatives are p < Po, we reject the hypothesis
if the sample correlation coefficient is less than r;), where r~ is chosen so
FU''oIN, Po) = a. If the alternatives arc P =1= Po' the region of rejection is r > rl
and r <r'" where r l and r~ are chosen SO [1- F(r,IN, Po)] + F(r;IN. Po) = a.
David suggests that r I and r; be chosen so [1 - F(r II N. Po)] = F(r; IN, Po)
= 1a. She has shown (1937) that for N'?. 10, Ipl s;; 0.8 this critical region is
nearly the region of an unbiased test of H, that is, a test whose power
function has its minimum at Po.
It should be pointed out that any test based on r is invariant under
transformations of location and scale, that is, x;a = bix ra + Ci' b, > 0, i = 1,2,

·p",ocn.9 means p=O,O.1,O,2, .. ,0.9.

4.2 CORRBLATION COBFFICIBNT OF A BIVARIATB SAMPLE 127

Table 4.1. A Power Function

p Probability
-1.0 0.0000
-0.8 0.0000
-0.6 0.0004
-0.4 0.0032
-0.2 0.0147
0.0 0.0500
0.2 0.1376
0.4 0.3215
0.6 0.6235
0.8 0.9279
1.0 1.0000

a - 1, ... , N; and r is essentially the only invariant of the sufficient statistics

(Problem 3.7). The above procedure for testing H: p = Po against alterna-
tives p > Po is uniformly most powerful among all invariant tests. (See
Problems 4.16,4.17, and 4.18.)
As an example suppose one wishes to test the hypothesis that p - 0.5
against alternatives p =# 0.5 at the 5% level of significance using the correla-
tion observed in a sample of 15. In David's tables we find (by interpolation)
that F(0.027 I15, 0..5) = 0.025 and F(0.805115, 0.5) = 0.975. Hence we reject
the hypothesis if Our sample r is less than 0.027 or greater than 0.805.
Secondly, we can use David's tables to compute the power function of
a test of correlation. If the region of rejection of H is r> rl and r < ri,
the power of the test is a function of the true correlation p, namely
U - F(r[IN, p) + [F(riIN, p)j; this is the probability of rejecting the null
hypothesis when the population correlation is p.
As an example consider finding the power function of the test for p = 0
considered in the preceding section. The rejection region (one-sided) is
r ~ 0.5494 at the 5% significance level. The probabilities of rejection are
given in Table 4.1. The graph of the power function is illustrated in Figure
4.2.
Thirdly, David's computations lead to confidence regions for p. For given
N, r} (defining a qignificance point) is a function of p, say !l( p), and r J is
another function of p, say fz( p), such that

(44) Pr{!l( p) < r <!z( p) Ip} = 1 - a.

Clearly, !l( p) and !z( p) are monotonically increasing functions of p if r 1

and r.
are chosen so 1-F(rlIN.p)=~a=F(r;IN,p).1f p=fil(r~ ir. the
128 SAMPLE CORRELATIO N COeFFICIENTS

Figure 4.2. A power function.

inverse of r = fie p), i = 1,2, then the inequality fl( p) < r is equivalent tot
P <fI I(r), and r <fzC p) is equivalent to hl(,) < p. Thus (44) can be written

(45)

This equation says that the probability is 1 - a that we draw a sample such
that the inteIVal (f2 I (r),J'i l (r)) covers the parameter p. Thus this inteIVal is
a confidence inteIVal for p with confidence coefficient 1 - a. For a given N
and a the CUIVes r = fl( p) and r = f2( p) appear as in Figure 4.3. In testing
the hypothesis p = Po, the intersection of the line p = Po and the two CUIVes
gives the significance points rl and r~. In setting up a confidence region for p
on the basis of a sample correlation r*, we find the limits 1:;1 (r*) and

Figure 4.3

tThe point (fl( p), p) on the first curve is to the left of (r, p), and thl' point (r,[ll(r» i~ above
(r, p).
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 129

fll(r* ) by the intersection of the line r = r* with the two curves. David gives
these curves for a = 0.1, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.01 for various values of N. One-
sided confidence regions can be obtained by using only one inequality above.
The tables of F(r\N, p) can also be used instead of the curves for finding
the confidence interval. Given the sample value r*, fll(r*) is the value of p
such that ~a = Pr{r ~ r*\ p} = F("* IN, p), and similarly [21(r*) is the value
of P such that ~a = Pr{r 2. r* I p} = 1 - F(r* IN, p). The interval between
these two values of p, (fi. I (r*), fli (r* », is the confidence interval.
As an example, consider the confidence interval with confidence coeffi-
cient 0.95 based on the correlation of 0.7952 observed in a sample of 10.
UsL1g Graph II of David, we 1ind the two limits are 0.34 and 0.94. Hence we
state that 0.34 < P < 0.94 with confidence 95%.

Definition 4.2.1. Let L(x, 8) be the likelihood function of the observation

vector x and th(~ parameter vector 8 E n. Let a null hypothesis be defined by a
proper subset w of n.The likelihood ratio criterion is

SUPOE w L (x,8)
(46) A(x) = ----'=----=-=--=------'-----'-
supo-= u L (x,8) .

The likelihood ratio test is the procedure of rejecting the null hypothesis .... -/zen
A(x) is less than a predetermined constallI.

Intuitively, one rejects the null hypothesis if the density of the observa-
tions under the most favorable choice of parameters in the null hypothesi~ is
much less than the density under the most favorable unrestricted choice of
the parameters. Likelihood ratio tets have some desirable featlJres~ ~ee
Lehmann (195~), for example. Wald (1943) has proved some favorable
asymptotic properties. For most hypotheses conceming the multivariate
normal distribution, likelihood ratio tests are appropriate and often are
optimal.
Let us consider the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis that p = Po
based on a sample xl"'" x N from the bivariate normal distribution. The set
n consists of iJ.l' iJ.2' (Tl' (T2' and p such that (Tl > 0, (T'2. > O. - I < P < L
The set w is the subset for which p = Po. The likelihood maximized in n is
(by Lemmas 3.2.2 and 3.2.3)

(47)
130 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

LJ nder the null hypothesis the likelihood function is

(48)

where (Tz= (Tl(TZ and T= (T1/(T2' The maximum of (48) with respect to T
occurs at T = va:: va
I :'2 • The concentrated likelihood is

( 49)

the maximum of (49) occurs at

at, a~2(1- po')

( 50)
N(l- pn
The likelihood ratio criterion is, therefore,

(51 )

The likelihood ratio test is (1- pJXl - ,2Xl - PO,)-2 < c, where c is chosen
so the probability of the inequality when samples are drawn from normal
populations with correlation Po is the prescribed significanc(' leveL The
critical region can be written equivalently as

( 52)

or

(53)
r < Poc - (1 - pJ)v'i"=C"
pJc + 1 - pJ

Thus the likelihood ratio test of H: p = Po against alternatives p *" Po has a

rejection region of the form' >'1 and, < r~; but " and ') are not chosen so
that the probability of each inequality is al2 when H is true, but are taken
to be of the form given in (53), where c is chosen so that the probability of
the two inequalities is a.
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 131

4.2.3. The Asymptotic Distribution of a Sample Correlation Coefficient

and Fisher'S z
In this section we shall show that as the sample size increases, a sample
correlation coefficient tends to be normally distributed. The distribution of a
particular function, of a sample correlation, Fisher's z [Fisher (1921)], which
has a variance approximately independent of the population correlation,
tends to normajty faster.
We are particularly interested in the sample correlation coefficient

(54) r(n)

for some i and j, i '* j. This can also be written

(55)

where Cgh(n) =A/1h(n)/ ~ G"gg G"hll . The set Cin), C)in), and Cin) is dis-
tributed like the distinct elements of the matrix

where the (Z:«, Z7«) are independent, each with distribution

where
Oi)
p

Let

(57)

(58)
b= l~).
132 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Then by Theorem 3.4.4 the vector [,l[U(n) - b] has a limiting normal

°
distribution with mean and covariance matrix

2p
(59) 2p
1 + p2

Now we need the general theorem:

Theorem 4.2.3. Let {U(n)} be a sequence of m-component random vectors

and b a fixed vector such that {;;[U(n) - b] has the limiting distribution N(O, T)
as n ---+ 00. Let feu) be a vector-valued function of u such that each component
Jj(u) has a nonzero differential at u=b, and let af/u)/au1Iu:b be the i,jth
component of ~b' Then {;; {f[u(n)] - f(b)} has the limiting distribution
N(O, ~~T~b)'

Proof See Serfling (1980), Section 3.3, or Rao (1973), Section 6a.2. A
function g(u) is said to have a differential at b or to be totally differentiable
at b if the partial derivatives ag(u)/ au, exist at u = b and for every e> 0
there exists a neighborhood Ne(b) such that

(60)

g(u) -g(b) - I: a~su)

1=1 1
(u,-bJ $&ilu-bil for all u EtvAb). •

It is cleJr that U(n) defined by (57) with band T defined by (58) and (59),
respectively, satisfies the conditions of the theorem. The function

(61)

satisfies the conditions; the elements of ~b are

(62)
4.2 CORRElATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 13J

and f(b) = p. The vanance of the limiting distribution of m(r( n) - p] is

(63)
2p
2p
l(-~p
-"'iP
1 + p2 1

I
- iP
= ( p _ p .. , p - p~, 1 - p'2) I
- iP

.., ..,
=(l-p-f·

Thus we obtain the following:

Theorem 4.2.4. If r(n) is the sample co"elation coefficient of a sample of N

(= n + 1) from a "zormal distribution with co"elation p, then m(r(n) - pl!
(1 - p2) [or W[r(n) - p]/O - p2)] has the limiting distribution N(O, 1).

It is clear from Theorem 4.2.3 that if f(x) is differentiable at x = p. then

m[j(r) - f( p)] is asymptotically normally distributed with mean zero and
varIance

A useful function to consider is one whose asymptotic variance is COnstant

(here unity) independent of the parameter p. This function satisfies the
equation

1
(64) f ( p)
I
= 1 _ p2 ="21( 1 +1 p + 1 -1p) .

Thus f( p) is taken as ~Uog(1 + p) -logO - p)] = ~ logO + p)/O - p)]. The

so-called Fisher'S z is

I 1+r -1
( 65) z = -log-- = tanh r
2 1- r '

1 1+ p
(66) ,=-log--.
2 1- p
134 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Theorem 4.2.5. Let z be defined by (65), where r is the correlation coeffi-

cient of a sample of N (= 1] + 1) from a bivariate nomwl distribution with
con'elation p: let' be defined by (66). Then lit (z - ') has a limitipg normal
distribution with meal! 0 and variance 1.

It can be shown that to a closer approximation

( 67)

( 68)

The latter follows from

., 1 8 - p2
(69) G(z {r=-+
1] 4n-
? + ...

and holds good for p2/n 2 small. Hotelling (1953) gives moments of z to order
n -~. An important property of Fisher's z is that the approach to normality is
much more rapid than for r. David (938) makes some comparisons between
the labulat~d probabilities and the probabilities computed by assuming z is
normally distributed. She recommends that for N> 25 one take z as nor-
mally distributed with mean and variance given by (67) and (68). Konishi
(1978a, 1978b, 1979) has also studied z. [Ruben (1966) has suggested an
alternative approach, which is more complicated, but possibly more accurate.]
We shall now indicate how Theorem 4.2.5 can be used.

a. Suppose we wish to test the hypothesis P = Po on the basis of a sample

of N against the alternatives P"* PI)' We compute r and then z by (65). Let

( 1 + Po
(70) '0 = '2log 1 - Po .

Then a region of rejection at the 5% significance I ;vel is

PI) vN - 3!z - '01 > 1.96.

A better region is

(72) ./
v N - 3 1z '0 Nipo
_ f I > 1.96.

b. Suppose we have a sample of N( from one population and a sample of

N: froIn a second population. How do we test the hypothesis that the two
4.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF A BIVARIATE SAMPLE 135

correlation coefficients ue equal, PI = P2? From Theorem 4.2.5 we know

that if the null hypothesis is true then Z I - Z2 [where Z I and Z2 are defined
by (65) for the two sample correlation coefficients] is asymptotically normally
distributed with mean 0 and variance 1/(Nt - 3) + 1/(N2 - 3). As a critical
region of size 5%, we use

(73)

c. Under the conditions of paragraph b, assume that Pt = P2 = p. How

do we use the results of both samples to give a joint estimate of p? Since Zt
and Z2 have variances 1/(N, - 3) and 1/(N2 - 3), respectively, we can
estimate { by

(N] - 3)zt + (N2 - 3)Z2

(74) Nt +N2 - 6

and convert this to an estimate of P by the inverse of (65).

d. Let r be the sample correlation from N observations. How do we
obtain a confidence interval for p? We know that approximately

(75) Pr{ -1.96 ~ VN - 3 (z- {) ~ 1.96} = 0.95.

From this we deduce that [ -1.96 I VN - 3 + z, 1.961 VN - 3 + z] is a confi-

dence interval for {. From this we obtain an interval for p using the fact
p = tanh {= (e' - e-{ )/(e{ + e-{), which is a monotonic transformation.
Thus a 95% confidence interval is

(76) tanh( Z - 1.961VN - 3 ) ~ p ~ tanh( Z + 1.961VN - 3 ).

The bootstrap method has been developed to assess the variability of a

sample quantity. See Efron (1982). We shall illustrate the method on the
sample correlation coefficient, but it can be applied to other quantities
studied in this book.
Suppose Xl'" ., x N is a sample from some bivariate population not neces-
sarily normal. The approach of the bootstrap is to consider these N vectors
as a finite population of size N; a random vector X has the (discrete)
probability

1
(77) Pr{X=x a } =N'
- a=l, ... ,N
136 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

A rand Jm ~ample of size N drawn from this finite population ha.; a probabil-
ity distribution, and the correlation coefficient calculated from such a sample
has a (discrete) probability distribution, say PN(r). The bootstrap proposes to
use this distribution in place of the unobtainable distribution of the correla-
tion coefficient of random samples from the parent population. However, it is
prohibitively expensive to compute; instead PN(r) is estimated by the empiri.
cal distribution of r calculated from a large number of random samples from
(77). Diaconis and Efron (1983) have given an example of N = 15; they find
the empirical distribution closely resembles the actual distribution of r
(essentially obtainable in this special case). An advantage of this approach is
that it is not necessary to assume knowledge of the parent population;
a disadvantage is the massive computation.

4.3. PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS;

CONDmONAL DISTRIBUTIONS

4.3.1. Estimation of Partial Correlation Coefficients

Partial correlation coefficients in normal distributions are correlation coeffi·
cients in conditional distributions. It was shown in Section 2.5 that if X is
distributed according to N(IJ" I), where

(1) x(1)
X= ( X(2)
1
,

then the conditional distribution of X(l) given X(2) = X(2) is N[IJ,(l) + p(X(2) -
1J,(2), I U . 2 ]' where

(2)

(3)

The partial correlations uf X( I) given X(2) are the correlations caiculated in

the usual way from I ll . 2 . In this section we are interested in statistical
problems concerning these correlation coefficients.
First we consider the problem of estimation on the basis of a sample of N
from N(IJ" I). What are the maximum likelihood estimators of the partial
correlations of X(l) (of q components), PI)"q+ I . .... p? We know that the
4.~ PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 137

maximum likelihood estimator of I is (l/N)A, where

N
(4) A= E (xa-i)(xa- i )'
a=1

and i = 0/ N)LZ~ 1 xa = (i(l)' i(2)')'. The correspondence between I and

I U '2' 13. and I22 is one-to-one by virtue of (2) and (3) and
(5) I 12 = J3I 22 ,
( 6) I II == I IL':~ + J3I 22 J3'·

We can now apply Corollary 3.2.1 to the effect that maximum likelihood
estlmators of functions of pa rameters are those functions of the maximum
likelihood estimators of those parameters.

Theorem 4.3.1. Let XI"'" X N be a sample from N( jJ., I), where jJ.
and I are partitioned as in (1). Define A by (4) and (i(I)' i(~)') =
(1/N)LZ=I(X~)' X~2)'). Then the maximltm likelihood estinJatOl:'1 of jJ.(l). jJ.(21.
13. I ll .2 • and I22 are fJ.,(I) = i(I), fJ.,(2) = i<2l,

(7)

and I22 = 0/N)A 22 , respectively.

In turn, Corollary 3.2.1 can be used to obtain the maximum likelihood

. f jJ.(I) , jJ.(2) , t",
A ~ . - 1 d P'),q+l . . . p'
estImators 0 ""'22' CT" .• /-LI. . / , . 1 - , ... ,q. an
i, j = 1, ... , q. It follows that the maximum likelihood estimators of the partial
correlation coefficients are
A
A .. p
O",)'q-t-I •
(ti) P,),q + 1 ..... p = /A=::::::::::::::=A====
-_--;= , i,j=l. ... ,q.
V O"i,.q + l.p O"I).q -t- 1. .. p

where a-I),q+ I • .... p is the i, jth element of :t 11.2'

138 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Theorem 4.3.2. Let Xl"'" XN be a sample of N from N(v., I). The

maximum likelihood estimators of P')'q + I, " .. p' the partial co"elations of the first
q components conditional on the last p - q components, are given by

( 9) i,j=l, ... ,q,

where

( 10)

The estimator P,),q + I, ... , p' denoted by r,),q +I. . '" p' is called the sample
paltiai co"elatiOIl coefficient between X, and X) holding X q+ I' ... , Xp fixed. It is
also called the sample partial correlation coefficient between Xi and Xi
having taken account of Xq+ I " " , Xp. Note that the calculations can be done
in terms of (r,)-
The matrix A 11.2 can also be represented as

N
(11) All ~ = E
a=1
[X~I) - x(l) - P{ X~2) - X(2)) 1[X~l) - x(l) - P{ X~2) - x(2)) l'
A A

= All - PA 22 P I.

The vector X(I)

a
- t"
x
O) - a(x(2) - i(2» is the residual of x(I) from its regression
a a
on xt;l and 1. The partial correlations are simple correlations between these
residuals. The definition can be used also when the distributions involved are
not normal.
Two geometric interpretations of the above theory can be given. In
p~dimcnsi()nal ~pace Xl"'" X N represent N points. The sample regression
function

(12)

is a (p - q)-dimen~ional hyperplane which is the intersection of q (p - 1)-

dimensional hyperplanes,

P
( 13) X,=X,+ E ~,)(x)-x)), i = 1, ... , q,
j=q+l

where X" x) are running variables. Here ~i) is an element of = 112 1221 = P
A 12 A 221 . The ith row of P
is ( ~/ q+ I' ••. , ~/P)' Each right-hand side of (13) is
the least squares regression function of x, on Xq+I""'Xp; that is, if we
project the points XI"'" x N on the coordinate hyperplane of Xi' Xq+ I " ' " Xp'
4.3 PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFF"ICIENTS 139

N
Figure 4.4

then (13) is th( regression plane. The point with coordinates

p
(14) Xj=Xj+ L ~Ij(xia-xi)' i = 1, ... , q,
j=q t l

j=q+1, ... ,p,

is on the hyperplane (13). The difference in the ith coordinate of Xa Hnd the
point (14) is Yia = Xja - (Xi + Lr~q + I ~ixJa - i J)] for i = 1, ... , q anJ 0 for
the other coordinates. Let y:. = (y 1",' .•. , Yq<l). These points can be repre-
sented as N points in a q-dimensional space. Then A ll .2 = L~=IYaY~.
We can also interpret the sample as p points in N-space (Figure 4.4). Let
u J =(x;I' ... ,xi1Y )' be the jth point, and let E = 0, ... , 1)' be another point.
The point with coordinates ii' ... ' Xi is XiE. The projection of u, on the
hyperplane spanned by u q+ I, •.• , up, E is
p
(15) u =i;E + E
j ~tl uJ - XjE);
j=q+l

this is the point on the hyperplane that is at a minimum distance from U j • Let
uj be the vector from u; to u" that is, Uj - U" or, equivalently, this vector
translated so that one endpoint is at the origin. The set of vectors ut, ... , u~
are the projections of U l ' ... ' u q on the hyperplane orthogonal to
140 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Up, E. Then u;'ui = a,'.qtl ..... p, the length squared of uj (Le., the
U qtl , ••• ,
square of the distance of u from 12). Then Uf 'u; / ,ju; 'UfU; 'u; = r ij .qt I • .... p
is the cosine of the angle between u; and uj.
As an example of the use of partial correlations we consider some data
[Hooker (1907)] on yield of hay (XI) in hundredweights per acre, spring
rainfall (X2 ) in inches, and accumulated temperature above 42°P in the
spring (X3 ) for an English area over 20 years. The estimates of /-L" (T,
(= F,;), and P,} are

( 28.02)
91
fJ, = i = 59:. ,

(16)
(::) ~ 4.42)
1.10 ,
85

1 0.80 40
PI2
1 P") (
P23::::;
1.00
0.80 1.00
-0. 1
-0.56 .
P21

P31 P32 1 -0.40 -0.56 1.00

From the correlations we observe that yiel.d and rainfall are positively
related, yield and temperature are negatively related, and rainfall and tem-
perature are negatively related. What interpretation is to be given to the
apparent negative relation between yield and temperature? Does high tem-
perature tend to cause low yield, or is high temperature associated with low
rainfall and hence with low yield? To answer this question we consider the
correlation between yield and temperature when rainfall is held ftxed; that is,
we use the data given above to estimate the partial correlation between Xl
and X3 with X 2 held fixed. It is t

(17)

Thus, 'f thl.! effect of rainfall is removed, yield and temperature :ue positively
correlated. The conclusion is that both hif;h raninfall and high temperature
increase hay yield, but in most years high rainfall occurs with low tempera-
ture and vice versa.

tWe com,Jute with i as if it were :I.

4.3 PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 141

4.3.2. The Distribution of the Sample Partial Correlation Coefficient

In order to test a hypothesis about a population partial correlation coefficient
we want the distribution of the sample partial correlation coefficient. The
partial correlations are computed from A Il . 2 = All - AIZA221Azl (as indicated
in Theorem 4.3.1) in the same way that correlations are computed from A.
To obtain the distribution of a simple correlation we showed that A was
distributed as E~::ZaZ~, where Zt"",ZN_1 are distributed independently
according to N(O, I) and independent of X (Theorem 3.3.2). Here
we want to show that A11,z is distributed as E~:t-( 1)-qluaU~, where
Up ..• , U N - I -( p-q) are: distributed independently according to N(O, III.2)
amI independently of p. The di!;tribution of a partial correlation coefficient
will follow from the characterization of the distribution of A 112' We state the
theorem in a general form; it will be used in Chapter 8, where we treat
regression'in detail. The following corollary applies it to A II :!. expressed in
terms of residuals.

Theorem 4.3.3. Suppose f l , ••• , Y,,, are independent with fa distributed

according to N(fwa , ~), where 14'a is an r-component vector. Let H = E:~~ IWaw:.
assumed nonsingular, G = E:"" I fa 14': H- I , and
m m

(%""'1 a=l

Then C is distributed as E::~ UaU~, where UI , ••• , Um - r are independently

distributed according to N(O, ~) and independently of G.

Proof. The rows of f = (YI , ... , Ym )

are random vectors in an m-dimen~
sional space, and the rows of W = (WI"'" wm ) are fixed vectors in that space,
The idea of the proof is to rotate coordinate axes so that the last r axes are
in the space spanned by the rows of W. Let E2 = FW, where F is a square
matrix such that FHF I = I. Then
m
(19) E2E2 = FWW' F' = F L waw~F'
(%""'1

=FHF' =1.

Thus the m-component rows of E2 are orthogonal and of unit length. It is

possible to find an (m - r) X m matrix E I such that

(20) E= (!:)
142 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

IS orthogollal. (See Appendix, Lemma A.4.2,) Now let V = YE' (I.e., Va =

[.;=1 e"/3 Y/3)' By rheorem 3.3.1 the columns of V = (VI"'" Vm) are indepen-
dently and normally distributed, each with covariance matrix ~. The means
are given by

(21 ) $V = $YE' = rWE'

= rp- I E 2(E'1 Ei)
= (0 rp-l)

by orthogonality of E. To complete the proof we need to show that C

transforms to L~:l U" U~. We have
m m
~22) E YaY~ = yy' = VEE'V' = VV' = E VaV~.
a=l a=l

Note that

( 2~) G = YW'H- 1 == UEE':.(P·-I),p'p

~ ul!}:,p
== V( ~ )F= U(2) P,

m
(24)
a=m-rt I

Thus C is
II! m m m-r
L: }~, 1:; - GHG' = E v.,U{; - E VnU,: == E V"a.:.
" I " I ,,-III-reI l\'=1

Thi~ proves the theorem. •

It follows from the above considerations that when r == 0, the $U == 0, and

we obtain the following:

Corollary 4.3.1. If r == 0, the matrix GHG' defined in Theorem 4.3.3 is

distributed as L'::=nI-r+1 VaV~, where Vm-rtl",.,Vm are independently dis-
tributed, each according to NCO, ~).
4.3 PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIEN'!S 143

We now find the distribution of A 11 . 2 in the same form. It was shown in

Theorem 3.3.1 that A is distributed as r,~:f ZaZ~, where ZI"'" ZN -1 are
independent, each with distributio 1 N(O, I). Let Za be partitioned into two
subvectors of q and p - q components, respectively:

(26) Za =
z(I)
Z~2)
1.
(

Then Ai} = r,~= I Z~)Z~})I. By Lemma 4.2.1, conditionally on Ze) =

Z~2), •• • , Z~~ 1 = z~~ I, the random vectors ZP), ... , Z~~ I are independently
distributed, with Z~') distributed according to N(pZ~2), III.2), where 13 =
I'2I221 and Ill'2=Ill-II2'I:i2'I21' Now we apply Theorem 4.3.3 with
Z~I) = Ya , Z~2) = "'a' N -1 = m, p - q = r,l3 = r, III.2 = W, All r,Z:;:f YaY~,
A12 Au' = G, A22 = H. We find that the conditional distribution of An -
(Au Au1)A22(A221A'12) = A 11.2 given Z~2) = z~), a = 1, ... , N - 1, is that of
r,~::: i -( p-q )Ua U~, where U1, ... , UN _ 1-( p_q) are independent, each with dis-
tribution N(O, III.2)' Since this distribution does not depend on {Z~2)}, we
obtain the following theorem:

Theorem 4.3.4. The matrix. All 2 = Atl - A 11A221A21 is dit;tributed as

r,~:i-(p-q)UaU~, where U" ... ,UN_1_(p-q) are independently distributed, each
according to N(O, III'2)' and independently of A12 and A 22 .

Corollary 4.3.2. If II2 = 0 (13 = 0), then A II ' 2 is distributed as

",/1-1-(
"-'a 1= p q)Ua U'a and A 12 A-lA
22 21 . d'LSm'b uted as "'N-I
l.."i "-'a=N-( p-q} Ifa uar l
1.
WHere
U I , ••• , UN - 1 are independently distributed, each according to N(O, III'2)'

Now it follows that the distribution of riJ.q+ I .. ... p based on N observations

is the same as that of a simple correlation coefficienl based on N - (p - q)
observations with a corresponding population correlation value of PiJ.q + I, ''', p'

Theorem 4.3.5. If the cdf of rl} based on a sample of N from a normal

distribution with correlation Pij is denoted by F(rIN, Plj)' then the cdf of
the sample partial correlation rl} 'I + I. ,.. j> based OIL a sample of N from a
normal dLvtributiofl with partial con'elation coeffICient Ptj'</ ~ I, ".}' is F(rIN-
(p - q), Pij.q+J,. ... ;J

This distribution wa" derived hy Fisher (1924).

4.3.3. Tests of Hypotheses and Confidence Regions for Partial

Correlation Coefficients
Since the distribution of a sample partial correlation rl}'q + I. "" p based on a
sample of N from a distribution with population correlation Pij.q + 1, ... , p
144 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

equal to a certain value, p, say, is the same as the distribution of a simple

correlation, based on a sample of size N - (p - q) from a distribution with
the corresponding population correlation of p, all statistical inference proce-
dures for the simple population correlation can be used for the partial
correlation. The procedure for the partial correlation is exactly the same
except that N is replaced by N - (p - q). To illustrate this rule we give two
examples.

Example 1. Suppose that on the basis of a sample of size N we wish to

obtain a coufidence interval for Pij-q + I ..... p' The sample partial correlation is
'U'q+l ..... p. The procedure is to use David's charts for N - (p - q). In the
example at (he end of Section 4.3.1, we might want to find a confidence
interval for P12'3 with confidence coefficient 0.95. The sample partial correla-
tion is '12'3 = 0.759. We use the chart (or table) for N - (p - q) = 20 - 1 = 19.
The int~rval is 0.50 < PI2'3 < 0.88.

Example 2. Suppose that on the basis of a sample of size N we use

Fisher's z for an approximate significance test of Pij'q + I •.... p = Po against
two-sided alternatives. We let
11 1 +,.IJ·q+I ..... p
z ="2 og 1 _ ,
'ij'q+ I •...• p
(27)
'0 = zlog 1 +
I
1-
Po
Po •

Then IN - (p - q) - 3 (z - '0) is compared with the significance points of

the standardized normal distribution. In the example at the end of Section
4.3.1, we might wish to test the hypothesis P13.2 = 0 at the 0.05 level. Then
'0 = 0 and J20 - 1 - 3 (0.0973) = 0.3892. This value is clearly nonsignificant
(10.38921 < 1.96), and hence the data do not indicate rejection of the null
hypothesis.
To answer the question whether two variables Xl and X 2 are related when
both may be related to a vector X(2) = (X 3 , ••• , x), two approaches may be
used. One is to consider the regression of XI on x 2 and X(2) and test whether
the regression of XI on x 2 is O. Another is 1) test whether P12.3 ..... p = O.
Problems 4.43-4.47 show that these approaches lead to exactly the same test.

4.4. THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

4.4.1. Estimation of the Multiple Correlation Coefficient

The population multiple correlation between one variate and a set of variates
was defined in Section 2.5. For the sake of convenience in this section we
shall treat the case of the multiple correlation between Xl and the vector
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 145

x(2) = (X 2 , •• • , X p )'; we shall not need subscripts on R.' The variables can
always be numbered so that the desired multiple correlation is this one (any
irrelevant variables being omitted). Then the multiple correlation in the
population is

( 1)

where ~, O'(l), and I22 are defined by

(2)

(3)

Given a sample Xl'"'' XN (N > p), we c!o;timate I by S = [N /( N - I)]:£ or

( 4)

and we estimate ~ by ~ = i 221 o-(l) = A2'ia(l). We define the sample multiple

co"elation coefficient by

(5) R=

That this is the maximum likelihood estimator of R is justified by Corollary

3.2.1, since we can define R, 0'(1)' I22 as a one-to-one tra.nsformation of ~.
Another expression for R [s(~e (16) of Section 2.5] follows from

( 6)
IAI

The quantrtles R and ~ have properties in the sample that are similar to
those R and ~ have in the population. We have analogs of Theorems 2.5.2,
2.5.3, and 2.5.4. Let xla=xl +~'(X~2)_X(2)), and xTa=x1a-x la be the
residual.

Theorem 4.4.1. Tile residuals xfa are unco"elated in the sample with the
components of X~2). a = 1, ... , N. For every ve( tor a
N 2 N ,
(7) E [Xla-Xl-~'(X~)_x(2))] ::; E [xlll-il-a'(x~2)-ir~\)r·
a=l a=l
146 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

The sample correlation between x I" and a' X~,2), a = I, ... , N, is maximized for
a :::;; ~. and that ma:x:imum co"elacion is R.

Proo,t: Since the sample mean of the residuals is 0, the vectOr of sample
covariances between :rt and X~2) is proportional to
Q

\'
\ 8) t [( .\'\", -.\' I) - ~' (X~2) - .r(2))]( X~2) - j(2»), = a(l) - P' A22 = O.
'" 1

The right-han,d side of (7) can be written as the left-hand side plus

N ,
(9) 1: [(P - a)'( x;) - j(2»)r
"'''I
N
= (P - a) 1: (x~) -
I j(2») ( x~) - i(2»), (P - a),
","'1

which is 0 if and only if a = ~. To prove the third assertion we considel the

,'ector a for which L'\'<>-1 [a'(x(:!) - i(2))]2 = LN0-1 [fl'(X(2)
t'
(t cr
j(2))] 2 , since the
correlation is unchanged when the linear function is mulitplied by a positive
constant. From (7) we obtain

N N
(10) all 2 1: (XI" idP'(x;;) -i(2)) + 1: (p'(x~) -i(2»)r
0-1 aal

N N
saIl 2 1: (XI" -ida'(x;) -i(:!») + 1: [al(x~) j(2»)f,
a-I ",=1

from which we deduce

( \1)

which I!) (5). •

Thus .t\ + ~'(X~:) -1(2)) is the best linear predictor of Xl", in the sample,
and P'X~I is the linear function of X~2) that has maximum sample correlation
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 147

with Xl 0 ' The minimum Sum of squares of deviations [the left-hand side of
(7)] is

N
(12) L [(x la -XI) - ~I(X~) _i(2))]2 =a 11 - ~'A22~
a=l

as defined in Section 4.3 with q = 1. The maximum likelihood estimator of

0'1l.2 is UU ' 2 = a ll . 2/N. It follows that

(13)

Thus 1 - R2 measures the proportional reduction in the variance by using

residuals. We can say that R2 is the fraction of the 'variance explained by x(2).
The larger R2 is, the more the variance is decreased by use of the explana-
tory variables in X(2).
In p-dimensional space x I' ... , X N represent N points. The sample regres-
sion function Xl = i l + ~/(X(2) - i(2)) is the (p - I)-dimensional hyperplane
that minimizes the squared deviations of the points from the hyperplane, the
deviations being calculated in the xI-direction. The hyperplane goes through
the point i.
In N-dimensional space the rows of (Xl"'" X N ) represent p points. The
N-component vector with ath component x ia -X, is the projection of the
vector with ath component x ,a on the plane orthogonal to the equiangular
line. We have p such vectors; a'(x~2) - i(2)) is the ath component of a vector
in the hyperplane spanned by the last p - 1 vectors. Since the right-hand side
of (7) is the squared distance between the first vector and the linear
combination uf the last p - 1 vectors, ~/(X~2) - X(2)) is a component of the
vector which minimizes this squared distance. The interpretation of (8) is that
the vector with ath component (x la - Xl) - ~/(X~2) - i(2)) is orthogonal to
each of the last p - 1 vectors. Thus the vector with ath component ~/(X~2) -
i(2)) is the projection of the first vector on the hyperplane. See Figure 4.5.
The length squared of the projection vector is

N ....
( 14) '\'
i-.J [a
p
l
(
xa(2) _ -(2))] 2--.p
X
.......
a'A 22P-a(l)
a - , A-I
22 a (l)'
a=1

and the length squared of the first vector is L~=I(Xla -i\)2 = all' Thus R is
the cosine of the angle between the first vector and its projection.
148 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

~~--------------------------l

Figure 4.5

In Section 3.2 we saw that the simple correlation coefficient is the cosine
of the angle between the two vectors involved (in the plane orthogonal to the
equiangular line). The property of R that it is the maximum correlation
between X Ia and linear combinations of the components of X~2) ~orresponds
to the geometric property that R is the cosine of the smallest angle between
the vector with components x I a - XI and a vector in the hyperplane spanned
by the other p - 1 vectors.
The geometric interpretations are in terms of the vectors in the (N - I)-
dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to the equiangular line. It was shown in
Section 3.3 that the vector (XII - XI" .. , XiN - X) in this hyperplane can be
designated as (ZiP"" Zi N-I), where the zia are the coordinates referred to
an (N - I)-dimensional 'coordinate system in the hyperplane. It was shown
that the new coordinates are obtained from the old by the transformation
Zia = L.~,",l ba {3xi{3' a = 1, ... , N, where B = (b a {3) is an orthogonal matrix
with last row OlIN, ... , 11 IN). Then

N N-I
(15) aij = E (xia -Xi)(X ja -XJ) = E ZiaZja'
a=1 a=1

It will be convenient to refer to the multiple correlatior defined in terms of

zia as the multiple correlation without subtracting the means.
The population multiple correlation R is essentially the only function of
the parameters f.L and I that is invariant under changes of location, changes
x
of scale of XI' and nonsingular linear transformations of (2), that is,
transformations xt = cX I + d, X(2)* = CX(2) + d. Similarly, the sample multi-
ple correlation coefficient R is essentially the only function of i &nd i, the
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELI\TION COEFFICIENT 149

sufficient set of statistics for jJ. and ~, thaI i~ invariant under these transfor-
mations. Just as the simple correlation,. is a measure of association between
two scalar variables in a sample, the multiple correlation R is a measure of
association between a scalar \ ariable and a vector variable in a sample.

4.4.2. Distribution of the Sample Multiple Correlation Coefficient

When the Population Multiple Correlation Coefficient Is Zero
From (5) we have

(16)

then

(17)

and

(18)

For q = 1, Corollary 4.3.2 states that when ~ = 0, that is, when R = O. all 2 is
· 'b uted as L,<;"N-P
d Istn V2 d a(l)A22 -1 . d'
Istn'b ute d as Lo.=N-p+1
,<;"N-[ V' h
a =[ a an all) IS 0.-. were
I

VI' ., . ,VN - 1 are independent, each with distribution N(O, (Tn :!). Then
a n . 2 / (T11.2 and a'(I)A2i a(\/ (TIl 2 are distributed independently as xl-varia-
1

bles with N - p and p - 1 degrees of freedom, respectively. Thus

(19)
~

Xp--l N-p
=-'~'-p 1
XN-p -

has the F-distribution with p - 1 and N - p degrees of freedom. The densil~

of F is
(20)
r[l(N-I)] (-1'~("-1) -1 -~\\-I\
r[Hp-l)]r[~(N--p}) ~(p- 1+ p
I (
2 P 1)-1
N-P) f- ,v_pf)
150 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIF.NTS

Thus the density of

p-l
- - Fp-I.N-p
N-p
(~l) R= p-l
1 + N_pFp-I,N-P

IS

r[4(N -I)} p-2 2 i<N-p)-1

(22) 2--'r['---:-1-(p--=-1---::)rr[~(N-p)} R (l-R) ,

Theorem 4.4.2. L.et R be the sample multiple co"elation coefficient [de-

fined by (S)] ~tween Xl and X(2 )1 = (X2 , .. . , Xp) based on a sample of N from
N(f.l, I). If R': 0 [that is, if (0'12"'" O'lp)' = 0 = (3], then [R2 /(1- R 2)].
[( N - p) /( p - 1)] is distributed as F with p - 1 and N - p degrees of freedom.

It should be noticed that p - 1 is the number of components of X(2) and

that N -- p = N - (p - 1) - 1. If the multiple correlation is between a compo-
nent X, and q other components, the numbers are q and N - q - 1.
It might be observed that R 2 /0 - R2) is the quantity that arises in
regression (or least squares) theory for testing the hypothesis that the
regression of Xl on X 2 , ••• , Xp is zero.
If R::f:: 0, the distribution of R is much mOre difficult to derive. This
distribution will be obtained in Section 4.4.3.
Now let us consider the statistical problem of testing the hypothesis
H : R = 0 on the basis of a sample of N from N(fL, I). [R is the population
mUltiple correlation hetween XI and (X:!, ... , Xl,).] Since R ~ 0, the alterna-
tives considered are R> O.
Let us derive the likelihood ratio test of this hypothesis. The likelihood
function is

(23) L(II* 1*) =

r- .
1
(27T ) ~N I1* 11N
expr _1 ;-. (x -
l
2 a~l a f.l
*)'I*-l(X -
u
*)]
fL

The observations are given; L is a function of the indeterminates fL*, I*. Let
(u be the region in the parameter space n
specified by the null hypothesis.
The likelihood ratio criterion is

(24)
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 151

Here n is the space of *, ~ositive definite, and Cd is the region in this

space where R'= O'(I)~22IO'(I) j.,[ii;; 0, that is, where O'(I)~2lO'(1) = O.
Because ~1} is positive definite, this condition is equivalent to 0'(1) """ O. The
maximum of L(j.l*, ~*) over n occurS at j.l* p. x and ~* i (ljN)A
= (1jN)E~=l(Xa - i)(x a - i)' and is

(25)

In Cd the likelihood function is

(26)

The first factor is maximized at J.l.i = III Xl and 0"1) 0"1) (1 j N)a u ' and
the second factor is maximized at j.l(2)* = fJ,(2) = f(2) and ~~2 == i22 =
(ljN)A 22 . The value of the maximized function is

NtN e-iN Nt(p-ON e-tcP-I)N

(27) max L( j.l* , ~ *) = IN I • I •
....*,:I*EW (21T)2 al~ (21T) 'EN

Thus the likelihood ratio criterion is [see (6)]

(28)

The likelihood ratio test consists of the critical region A < Ao, where Ao is
chosen so the probability of this inequality when R 0 is the significance
level a. An equivalent test is

(29)

Since [R 2j(l- R2)]{(N -p)j(p -1)] is a monotonic function of R, an

equivalent test involves this ratio being-larger than a constant. When R 0,
this ratio has an Fp_ I, N_p-distribution. Hence, the critical region is

(30)

where Fp _ I , N-p(a) is the (upper) significance point corresponding to the a

significance level.
152 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Theorem 4.4.3. Given a sample x I' ... , X N from N(JL, I), the likelihood
ratio test at significance level a for the hypothesis R = 0, where R is the
population multiple co"elation coefficient between XI and (X2 , •.. , X p )' is given
by (30), where R is the sample multiple co"elation coefficient defined by (5).

As an example consider the data given at the end of Section 4.3.1. The
sample multiple correlation coefficient is found from

1 rJ2 r l3
1.00 0.80 -0.40
r 21 1 r23
0.80 1.00 -0.56
r 31 r32 1 -0.40 -0.56 1.00
(31) 1- R2 = = 0.357.
1 r2;l 1 1.00 -0. 56 1
~0.56 1.00
r32 1

Thus R is 0.802. If we wish to test the hypothesis at the 0.01 level that hay
yield is independent of spring rainfall and temperature, we compare the
observed [R 2 /(l-R 2 )][(20-3)/(3-1)]=15.3 with F 2,I7(0.01) = 6.11 and
find the result significant; that is, we reject the null hypothesis.
The test of independence between XI and (X z'" ., Xp) =X(2)' is equiva-
lent to the test that if the regression of XI on x(Z) (that is, the conditional
.
expecte d va Iue 0 f X I gIVen X 2 -x
- 2 ,···, X p --;1' ).IS #LI + f,lr(
t" X
(2) - (2))
JL, t he
vector of regression coefficients is O. Here p = A 22 a(l) is the usual least
I

squal es estimate of ~ with expected value p and covariance matrix 0"11-2 A 221
(when the X~2) are fixed), and all _2/(N - p) is the usual estimate of O"U'2'
Thus [see (18)]

(32)

is the usual F-statistic for testing the hypothesis that the regression of XI on
x Z"'" xp is O. In this book we are primarily interested in the multiple
correlation coefficient as a measure of association between one variable and
a vector of variables when both are random. We shall not treat problems of
univariate regression. In Chapter 8 we study regression when the dependent
variable is a vector.

Adjusted Multiple Correlation Coefficient

The expression (7) is the ratio of a ll _2 , the sum of squared deviations from
the fitted regression, to all' the sum of squared deviations around the mean.
To obtain unbiased estimators of 0"11 when ~ = 0 we would divide these
quantities by their numbers of degrees of freedom, N - p and N - 1,
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 153

respectively. Accordingly we can define an adjusted multiple con'elation coeffi-

cient R* by

(33) 1

which is equivalent to

(34)

This quantity is smaller than R2 (unless p = 1 or R2 = 1). A possible merit to

it is that it takes account of p; the idea is that the larger p is relative to N,
the greater the tendency of R2 to be large by chance.

4.4.3. Distribution of the Sample Multiple Correlation Coefficient When the

Population Multiple Correlation Coefficient Is Not Zero
In this subsection we shall find the distribution of R when the null hypothe-
sis R 0 is not true. We shall find that the distribution depends only on the
population multiple correlation coefficient R.
First let us consider the conditional distribution of R2 IC I - R"} =
aU) A-I
/ 22 a(l) I a 11 . 2 gIven
. Z(2) C) a = 1, .... n. U n der t h ese con d'({Ions
a = Za-' .
Z II' ... ,Zlll are jndependently distributed, Z 1" according to N(~ Z~2), (J"1I ~),
I

where ~ I221 U(1) and (J"1\.2 = (J"n - u(I)I 2:!IU(l)' The conditions are those
of Theorem 4.3.3 with Ya=Zla, r W, MIa Z~), r=p 1, <P==(J"Il.:!,
I
m = n. Then a ll . 2 = all - a(I)A 22 a(JI cOrresponds to L~-l Y" Y,; GHG'. and
a ll .2/(J"lJ.2 has a X2-distribution with n - (p 1) degrees of freedom.
I
a(l) A 221 a(l) (A 22 a(I»)' A 22 (A 2la(l») corresponds to GHGt and is distributed
as LO/Ual, a = n - (p - I) + 1, ... , n, where Var(Ua ) (J"1t.:! and

(35)

where FHF'=I [H=F-I(Ft)-I]. Then a(I)A2i1a(I)/(J"I1.2 is distributed as

J
Ea<Ual (J"ll 2 )2, where Var(U.J~) 1 and

(36)
154 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

p 1 degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter P' A22~/ O"Il-2' (See

Theorem 5.4,1.) We are led to the following theorem:

Theorem 4.4.4. Let R be the sample multiple co"elation coefficient between

X(l) and X(2)1 U:2 , ... , Xp) based on N observations (xu, X~2»), ••• , (X1N, xW).
The conditional distribution of [R 2/(1 - R2)][N - p)/(p - 0] given x~) fixed
is noncentral F with p - 1 and N - p degrees of freedom and noncentrality
parameter ~' A22~/ 0"11-2'

The conditional density (from Theorem 5.4.1) of F [R 2/(1 - R2)][(N -

p)/(p 0] is

(p-l)exp[ -!P'A22~/O"1l'2]
(37) (N-p)r[HN-p)]

P' A22~ ) a[ ( p - 1)fJ f(p-D+a-1 I

:.lC ( 2 0"11-2 N-
p
r(z(N-l) +a]

and the conditional density of W=R2 is (df=[(N-p)/(p~l)](1-

W)-2 dw)

cxp[ lUI
21-'
u/O"]
A 221-' 112 (1 _
,
wr~(N-p)-1
(38)
r[t(N-p)]

To obtain the unconditional density we need to multiply (38) by the density

o f Z (2) n to 0 b'
I ' .•• , Z(2) tam t he JOInt
.. denslty
. 0 f Wan d Z(2) n an d t hen
I ' ... , Z(2)
illtegrate with respect to the latter set to obtain the marginal density of W.
We have

P'L~= I Z~)Z~)I~
(39)
0"11-2
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 155

Since the distribution of Z~2) is N(O, In), the distribution of WZ~2) / ~ (Til· 2
is normal with mean zero and variance

$WZ~2)Z~2) /~
( 40)
(T1I.2

WI22~ WI22~/(T1I
= (Til - WI22~ = 1- WI22~/(Ttl

iP
1- R 2 '

Thus (WA22~/(T11'2)/[/P/(1- R2)] has a X2-distribution with n degrees of

freedom. Let R 2/(l-R 2)= 4>. Then WA22~/(T11'2 = 4>x;. We compute

(41) $e- i4>A";( 4>1'; f

= 4>a lcouae-i4>u I 1 ufn-l e-IU du
2" 0 2:l nr On)

= 4>: j'co L 1 uin+a-J e-to+4»u du

2 u 2rnrOn)

4>a r(~n+a)lCO 1 !n+a-I e -lud v

=-'
(1 + 4> r
I
n
+
a
I
r(-in) 0
L

2!n+" rOn + a)
V2 2

4>a rOn+a)
(1 + 4»1 n a
+ rOn)
Applying this result to (38), we obtain as the density of R2

(1 - R2) i(n-p- 1)(1 _ R2) in 00 (iP( (R2) tfp-I )+r I r20n + IL)
( 42)
r[~(n -p + 1)]rOn) p.f:o IL!r(~(p -1) + IL]
Fisher (1928) found this di~tribution. It can also be written

(43)

'F[ln 1
2 '2 (p-1)·R
2 , In· , R],
2 2

where F is the hypergeometric function defined in (41) of Section 4.2.

156 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Another form of the density can be obtained when n - p + 1 is even. We

have

(44)

a) t( /I - p + I) L
=
( at
_ {'i n - I

1=1

The density is therefore

(1_R2)~n(R2)1(P-3)(1_ R2)i(n- p -n
( 45)
r[~(n-p+l)]

Theorem 4.4.5. The density of the square of the multiple co"elation coeffi-
cient, R\ between XI and X 2 , •.. , Xp based on a sample of N = n + 1 is given
by (42) or (43) [or (45) in the case of n - p + 1 even], where iP is the
co"esponding population multiple correlation coefficient.

The moments of Rare

'1 (1-
1
R 2 )1(n- p+O-I(R 2 )i(p+h-I)+r I d(R 2 )
o
_ (1_R2)tn E (R2)i-Lr20n+JL)r[Hp+h-l)+JL]
- rOn) 1-'=0 JL!f[~(p-l) +JL]r[~(n+h) +JL]

The sample multiple correlation tends to overestimate the population

multiple correlation. The sample multiple correlation is the maximum sample
correlation between Xl and linear combinations of X(2) and hence is greater
4.4 THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 157

than the sample correlation between XI and WX(2); however, the latter is the
simple sample correlation corresponding to the simple population correlation
between XI and (l'X(2\ which is R, the population multiple correlation.
Suppose Rl is the multiple correlation in the first of two samples and ~I
is the estimate of (3; then the simple correlation between X 1 and ~/I X(2) in
the second sample will tend to be less than RI and in particular will be less
than R 2 , the multiple ccrrelation in the second sample. This has been called
"the shrinkage of the multiple correlation."
Kramer (1963) and Lee (1972) have given tables of the upper significance
points of R. Gajjar (1967), Gurland (1968), Gurland and Milton (1970),
Khatri (1966), and Lee (1917b) have suggested approximations to the distri-
butions of R 2/(1 - R2) and obtained large-sample results.

4.4.4. Some Optimal Properties of the Multiple Correlation Test

Theorem 4.4.6. Given the observations Xl' ... , X N from N( j-L, I), of all tests
oj'/? = 0 at a given significance level based on i and A = E~_l(Xa -iXx a -x)'
that are invariant with respect to transfonnations

( 47)

any critical rejection region given by R greater than a constant is unifomlly most
powerful.

Proof The multiple correlation coefficient R is invariallt under the trans-

formation, and any function of the sufficient statistics that is invariant is a
frmction of R. (See Problem 4.34.) Therefore, any invariant test must be
based On R. The Neyman-Pearson fundamental lemma applied to testing
the null hypothesis R = 0 against a specific alternative R = R0 > 0 tells us the
most powerful test at a given level of significance is based on the ratio of the
density of R for R = Ro, which is (42) times 2R [because (42) is the density of
R 2 ], to the density for R = 0, which is (22). The ratio is a positive constant
times

( 48)

Since (48) is an increasing function of R for R ~ 0, the set of R for which

(48) is greater than a constant is an interval of R greater than a constant .
•
158 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Theorem 4.4.7. On the basis of observations Xl"'" XN from N(fJ., I), of

all tests o(R = 0 at a given significance level with power depending only on R, the
test with critical region given by R greater than a constant is unifOlmly most
powerful.

Theorem 4.4.7 follows from Theorem 4.4.6 in the same way that Theorem
5.6.4 follows from Theorem 5.6.1.

4.5. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

~.5.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Suppose Xl .... ' XN are N independent observations on a random p-vector X
with density

( 1)

The sample covariance matrix S is an unbiased estimator of the covariance

matrix ~=U''R1Ip]A, where R 2 =(X-v)'A- 1(X-v) and I/R 2 <co. An
estimator of PIJ = (TI,I"; (T'l OjJ = \ / M
is rlJ = SI/ vs/!sJJ-' i, j =
I .... , p. The small-sample distribution of rlJ is in general difficult to obtain,
but the asymptotic distribution can be obtained from the limiting normal
distribution of INcs - I) given in (13) of Section 3.6.
First we prove a general theorem on asymptotic distributions of functions
of the sample covariance matrix S using Theorems 4.2.3 and 3.6.5. Define

(2) S = vec S, fT = vec I.

Theorem 4.5.1. Let!(s) be a vector-valued function such that each compo-
nent of fCs) has a nonzero differential at s = fT. Suppose S is the covariance of a
sample from (1) such that 1/ R4 < co. Then

( 3) IN [f ( s) - f ( fT )] = a~ ~o;) IN (s - fT) + 01' (l )

~ N { 0, a~~o;) [2( 1 + K)( I ® I ) + KfT fT ,] ( a~ ~rr.) r}.

Corollary 4.5.1. If
( 4) f ( cs) = f ( s)

for all c > 0 and all positive definite S and the conditions of Theorem 4.5.1 hold,
then

( 5) /N [ f ( s) - f ( fT )] ~ N [ 0, 2( 1 + K) a~ ~o;) (I ® I) ( a~ ~o;) )' 1.

4.5 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DlSTRIBUTIONS 159

Proof. From (4) we deduce

0- af(cs) _ af(ca) a(ca) _ af(ca)

(6) - aC - aa' ac - aa' a.
That is,

af(a) -0
(7) aa' a - . •
The conclusion of Corollary 4.5.1 can be framed as

The limiting normal distribution in (8) holds in particular when the sample is
drawn from the normal distribution. The corollary holds true if K is replaced
by a consistent estimator R. For example, a consistent estimator of 1 + R
given by (16) of Section 3.6 is
N
(9) l+R= L [(xa-x)'S-I(xa i)r/[Np(p+2)].
lX==1

A sample correlation such as f(a) = rij = SI/ ";saSjj or a set of such

correlations is a function 01 S that is invariant under scale transformations;
that is, it satisfies (4).

Corollary 4.5.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 4.5.1,

(10)

As in the :::ase of the observations normally distributed,

Of course, any improvement of (11) over (10) depends on the distribution

samples.
Partial correlations such as rij.q+ I .... , p' i, j = 1, ... ,q, are also invariant
functions of S.

Corollary 4.5.3. Under the conditions of Theorem 4.5.1,

(12) V1 ~ R (rfj.q+I ..... p - Pij.q+l ..... p) !!. N(O, 1).

160 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Now let us consider the asymptotic distribution of R2, the squa.e of the
multiple correlation, when IF, the square of the population multiple correla-
tion, is O. We use the notation of Section 4.4. R2 = 0 is equvialent to 0'(1) = O.
Since the sample and population multiple correlation coefficients between
Xl and X(2) = (X2 , . •• ,Xp)I are invariant with respect to linear transforma-
tions (47) of Section 4.4, for purposes of studying the distribution
of R2 we can assume .... = 0 and I = lp. In that case SlI .4 1, S(I) .4 0, and
*"
S22 .4lp _ I ' Furthermore, for k, i 1 and j = l = 1, Lemma 3.6.1 gives

(13) cfs(l)s(,) = (~ + ~ )lp_I'

Theorem 4.5.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 4.5.1

(14)

Corollary 4.5.4. Under the conditions of Theorem 4.5.1

NR 2 N.S(I) S-I
I
22 S(I) d 2
(15) 1+ R= (1 + R) sll ~ Xp-I .

4.5.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Now let us tum to the model

(16)

based on the vector spherical model g(tr yIy). The unbiased estimators
of v and I = (cfR 2 /p)A are x = (l/N)X'E N and S = (l/n)A, where A =
(X - Ellx')'lX - E NX ' ).
Since

( 17) (X - EN V ') I (X - EN V ') = A + N (x - v)( X - v) I ,

A and x are a complete set of sufficient statistics.

The maximum likelihood estimators of v and A are = and A = v x
(p /Wg)A. The maximum likelihood estimator of P'j = A,/ VAiiAjj =
U'ij/ VU'jjU'jj is P,j = a,/ val/an = s'/ VSijSjj (Theorem 3.6.4).
The sample correlation r'j is a function f(X) that satisfies the conditions
(45) and (46) of Theorem 3.6.5 and hence has the same distribution for an
arbitrary density g[tr(·)] as for the normal density g[tr(·)] = const e- t1r (.).
Similarly, a partial correlation r'rq + 1.... , p and a multiple correlation R2
satisfy the conditions, and the conclusion holds.
4.5 ELLIPTICI\LLY CONTOURED D1STRIBl/ liONS 161

Theorem 4.5.3. When X has the vector elliptical density (6), rite distribu-
tions of rll , r,rq + l' and R2 are the distlibutions derived for normally distributed
observations .

It follows from Theorem 4.5.3 that the asymptotic distributions of r,)'

rij.q + I, ...• /1' and R2 are the same as for sampling from normal distributions.
The class of left spherical matrices Y with densities is the class of g( Y' Y).
Let X = YC' + EN v', where C't\ - I C = I, that is, A = CC'. Then X has the
density

(18)

We now find a stochastic representation of the matrix Y.

Lemma 4.5.1. Let V = (VI'"'' vp ), where V, is an N-component vector.

i = 1, ... , p. Define recursively wI = VI'

l. --_
( 19) WI =v- ?, ...• p.
I

Let u , = wJllw/ll. Then Ilu/11 = 1, i = 1, ... , p, and u:u, = 0, i =1= j. FW1her,

(20) V=UT',

where U=(Ul!""u p); tll=llw,ll, i=1. .... p; t,}=I';w/llw,ll=l';U}, j=

1, ... , i-I, i = 1, ... , p; and t,] = 0, i <j.

The proof of the lemma is given in the first part of Section 7.2 and as the
Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization in the Appendix (Section A.S.I). This
lemma generalizes the construction in Section 3.2; see Figure 3.1. See also
Figure 7.1.
Note that' T is lower triangulul', U'U=I", and V'V= TT'. The last
equation, til ~ 0, i = 1, ... , p, and I" = 0, i <j, can be solved uniquely for T.
Thus T is a function of V' V (and the restrictions).
Let Y CN xp) have the density gCY'Y). and let 0" he an orthogonal
N X N matrix. Then y* = ON Y has the density g(Y* 'Y*). Hence y* =
- U* T* , w1lere til* > O·
- vI . Le t y* -
N Y !L * -- 0 ,I. ......-- ].. F rom
, I -- I , " " p, an d t'J
°
I

Y* 'y* = Y'Y it follows that T* T:J< = TT' and hence T* = T, Y* = U* T. and

I

U* = 0NU fb. U. Let the space of U (N xp) such that U'U = I" be denoted
O(Nxp).

Definition 4.5.1. If U (N Xp) satisfies U'U= Ip and O,.U ~ U for all

orthogonal ON' then U is uniformly distrihuted on OC N x p).
162 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

The space of V satisfying V'V = lp is known as a Steifel manifold. The

probability measure of Definition 4.5.1 is known as the Haar invariant
distribution. The property ON V 1: V for all orthogonal ON defines the (nor·
malized) measure uniquely [Halmos (1956)].

Theorem 4.5.4. If Y (N xp) has the density g(Y'Y), then V defined by

Y = VT', V'V = lp, tl/ > 0, i = 1, ... , p, and til = 0, i <j, is uniformly dis-
tributed on O( N X p ).

The proof of Corollary 7.2.1 shows that for arbitrary gO the density of
T is

p
(21) n {cB( N + 1- i)] t/~-/}g(tr IT'),
i~ 1

where Cl') is ddined in (8) of Section 2.7.

The stochastic representation of Y ( N X p) with density g( Y' y) is

~22) Y=VT',

where V (N Xp) is uniformly distributed on O(N xp) and T IS lower

triangular with positive diagonal elements and has density (21).

Theorem 4.5.5. Let I(X) be a vector-valued function of X (N xp) such

that

(23) f(X+ £NV') =f(X)

for all v and

(24) f( XG') = f( X)

for all G (p xp). Then the distribution of f(X) where X has an arbitrary density
(18) is the same as the distribution of f(X) where X has the nonnal density (18).

Proof. From (23) we find that f(X) = j(YC'), and from (24) we find
j(YC') = j(VT'C') = f(V), which is the same for arbitrary and normal densi-
ties (18). •

Corollary 4.5.5. Let I(X) be a vector-valued function of X (N xp) with

the density (18), where v = O. Suppose (24) hold~ for all G (p xp). Then the
distribution of f(X) for an arbitrary density (18) is the same as the distribution of
flX) when X has the nonnal density (18).
PROBLEMS 163

The condition (24) of Corollary 4.5.5 is that I(X) is invariant with respect
to linear transformations X ~ XG.
The density (18) can be written as

(25) ICI-1g{C-t[A +N(x-v)(i- vr](C/)-I},

"

which shows that A and x are a complete set of sufficient statistics for
A=CC 1 and v.

PROBLEMS

4.1. (Sec. 4.2.1) Sketch

for (a) N = 3, (b) N = 4, (c) N = 5, and (d) N = 10.

4.2. (Sec.4.2.1) Using the data of Problem 3.1, test the hypothesis that Xl and X 2
are independent against all alternatives of dependence at significance level 0.01.

4.3. (Sec. 4.2.1) Suppose a sample correlation of 0.65 is observed in a sample of 10.
Test the hypothesis of independence against the alternatives of positive correla-
tion at significance level 0.05.

4.4. (Sec. 4.2.2) Suppose a sample correlation of 0.65 is observed in a sample of 20.
Test the hYpothesis that the population correlation is 0.4 against the alternatives
that the population correlation is greater than 0.4 at significance level 0.05.

4.5. (Sec.4.2.1) Find the significance points for testing p = 0 at the 0.01 level with
*'
N = 15 observations against alternatives (a) p 0, (b) p> 0, and (c) p < O.

4.6. (Sec. 4.2.2) Find significance points for testing p = 0.6 at the 0.01 level with
*'
N = 20 observations against alternatives (a) p 0.6, (b) p> 0.6, and (c) p < 0.6.

4.7. (Sec. 4.2.2) Tablulate the power function at p = -1(0.2)1 for the tests in
Probl~m 4.5. Sketch the graph of each power function.

4.8. (Sec. 4.2.2) Tablulate the power function at p = -1(0.2)1 for the tests in
Problem 4.6. Sketch the graph of each power function.

4.9. (Sec. 4.2.2) Using the data of Problem 3.1, find a (two-sided) confidence
interval for p 12 with confidence coefficient 0.99.

4.10. (Sec. 4.2.2) Suppose N = 10, , = 0.795. Find a one-sided confidence interval
for p [of the form ('0> 1)] with confidence coefficient 0.95.
164 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

4.11. (Sec. 4.2.3) Use Fisher's z to test the hypothesis P = 0.7 against alternatives
1-' ¢ O. i at the 0.05 level with r = 0.5 and N = 50.

4.12. (Sec. 4.2.3) Use Fisher's z to test the hypothesis PI = P2 against the alterna-
tives PI ¢ P2 at the 0.01 level with r l = 0.5, Nl = 40, r2 = 0.6, Nz = 40.

4.13. (Sec.4.2.3) Use Fisher's z to estimate P based on sample correlations of -0.7

(N = 30) and of - 0.6 (N = 40).

4.14. (Sec. 4.2.3) Use Fisher's z to obtain a confidence interval for p with confi~
dence 0.95 based on a sample correlation of 0.65 and a sample size of 25.

4.15. (Sec. 4.2.2). Prove that when N = 2 and P = 0, Pr{r = l} = Pr{r = -l} = !.
4.16. (Sec. 4.2) Let kN(r, p) be the density of thl sample corrclation coefficient r
for a given value of P and N. Prove that r has a monotone likelihood ratio; that
is, show that if PI> P2, then kN(r, p,)jkN(r, P2) is monotonically increasing in
r. [Hint: Using (40), prove that if

OQ

F[!,!;n+h~(1+pr)]= E ca (1+pr)a=g(r,p)
a=O

has a monotone ratio, then kN(r, p) does. Show

if (B 2jBpBr)logg(r,p»0, then g(r,p) has a monotone ratio. Show the

numerator of the above expression is positive by showing that for each a the
sum on p is positive; use the fact that ca+ I < !c a .]

4.17. (Sec. 4.2) Show that of all tests of Po against a specific PI (> Po) based on r,
the procedures for which r> C implies rejection are the best. [Hint: This follows
from Problem 4.16.}

4.18. (Sec. 4.2) Show that of all tests of p = Po against p> Po bas~d on r, a
procedure for which r> C implies rejection is uniformly most powerful.

4.19. (Sec. 4.2) Prove r has a monotone likelihood ratio for r> 0, p> 0 by proving
h(r) = kN(r, PI)jkN(r, P2) is monotonically increasing for PI > P2. Here h(r) is
a constant times Cr:~Oca PLra)j(t:~Oca pzr a ). In the numerator of h'(r),
show that the coefficient of r f3 is positive.

4.20. (Sec. 4.2) Prove that if I is diagonal, then the sets r 'j and all are indepen-
dently distributed. [Hint: Use the facts that rij is invariant under scale transfor-
mations and that the density of the observations depends only on the a,i']
PROBLEMS 165

4.21. (Sec.4.2.1) Prove that if p = 0

tC r
2
m =
r[t(N-l)]r(m+i)
---=::=="--=-:--.:.-"---'----'::-'-
j;r[t(N - 1) + m]

4.22. (Sec. 4.2.2) Prove fl( p) and f2( p) are monotonically increasing functions
of p.

4.23. (Sec. 4.2.2) Prove that the density of the sample correlation r [given by
(38)] is

[Hint: Expand (1 - prx)-n in a power series, integrate, and use the duplication
formula for the gamma fLnction.]

4.24. (Sec. 4.2) Prove that (39) is the density of r. [Hint: From Problem 2.12 show

Then argue

Finally show that the integral 0[(31) with respect to all ( = y 2) and a 22 ( = z2) is
(39).]

4.25. (Sec. 4.2) Prove that (40) is the density d r. [Hint: In (31) let all = ue- L- and
u
a22 = ue ; show that the density of u (0 ~ u < 00) and r ( - 1 ~ r ~ 1) is

Use the expansion

;, r(j+1) j
L- r( 1)'1 Y .
j=O 2 J.

Show that the integral is (40).]

166 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

4.26. (Sec. 4.2) Prove for integer h

C,~J,Tl = (I-p~rn
I

E(2p/ J3 +
l
r2[t(n+l)+J3]r(Iz+J3+t)
;;r(~n) {3=() (213+ I)! rOn +h + 13+ 1)
I
(1- p2f/l 00 (2p)'~ r2(In + J3)r(h + 13+ t)
f;r(tn) {3"'f:o (213)1 rOn+h+J3)

".27. lSec. 4.2) The I-distribution. Prove that if X and Yare independently dis-
tributed, X having the distribution N(O,1) and Y having the X 2-distribution
with m degrees of freedom, then W = XI JY1m has the density

[Hint: In the joint density of X and Y, let x = twlm- t and integrate out w.]

·US. {Sec. 4.2) Prove

[Him: Use Problem 4.26 and the duplication formula for the gamma function.]

4.29. (Sec. 4.2) Show that .fn( "j - Pij)' (i,j) =(1,2),(1,3),(2,3), have a joint limit-
ing distribution with variances (1 - PiJ)2 ann covaIiances of rij and 'ik, j k "*
·
b emg ~1 (2 P,k - Pi} P,k Xl - Pi,2 - Pik
2 2) 2
- Pjk + Pjk'

.UO. {Sec. 4.3.2) Find a confidence interval for P!3.2 with confidence 0.95 based on
'1.' ~ = 0.097 and N = 20.

4.31. {S~i.:. 4.3.2) U~t: Fi~her'~ ~ 10 te~t thc hypothesis P!2'34 = 0 against alternatives
p!~ ,.\ "*
0 at significance level 0.01 with '!n4 = 0.14 and N = 40.

4.32. {SCL. 43) Show that the inequality '~n s: I i~ the same as the inequality
1'1,1 ~O. where l'i,1 denotes the determinant of the 3 X 3 correlation matrix.

4.33. {Sct:. 4.3) il/varial/ce of Ihe sample paHial correlatioll coefficient. Prove that
r!~.3" ... p is invariant under the transformations x~a = ajxjCl + b;x~) + c j ' a j > 0,
i = 1, 2, x~)'" = Cx~) + b, ~ a = 1, ... , N, where x~) = (X3a"'" xpa)/, and that
any function of i and I that is invariant under these transformations is a
function of '12.3.. .. , p'

4.34. (Sec. 4.4) Invariance of the sample rmdtiple correlation coefficient. Prove that R
is a fUllction of the sufficient ~latistics i and S that is invariant under changes
of location and scale of Xl a and nonsingular linear transformations of 2) (that xi
is. xi.. = ex l " + d, X~2)* = CX~2) + d, a = 1, ... , N) and that every function of i
dnu S Ihal is invarianl i~ a function of R.
PROBLEMS 167

4.35. (Sec. 4.4) Prove that conditional on Zla=Zla' a=I, ... ,n, R2/0-R2) is
r
distributed like 2 /(N* -1), where r2
= N*i'S-li based on N* = n observa-
tions on a vector X with p* = P - 1 components, with mean vector (C/0"1J}<1(l)
(nc 2 = LZ~a) and covariance matrix I 22 '1 = I.22 - U/O"ll }<1(1)U(I)' [Hint: The
conditional distribution of Z~2) given Zla=zla is N[(1/0"1l)u(I)zla,I 22 '1]'
There is an n X n orthogonal matrix B which carries (ZIJ,"" Zln) into (c, ... , c)
and (Z;I"'" Z'/I) into OJ,, ... , }f", i = 2, ... , p. Let the new X~ be
(Y2a ,···, Ypa ).]

4.36. (Sec. 4.4) Prove that the noncentrality parameter in the distribution in Prob-
-2 -~
lem 4.35 is (all/O"Il)R /0 - RL).

4.37. (Sec. 4.4) Find the distribution of R2/<1 - R2) by multiplying the density of
Problem 4.35 by the density of all and integrating with re:;pect to all'

4.38. (Sec. 4.4) Show that the density of r 2 dcrived from (38) of Section 4.2 is
identical with (42) in Section 4.4 for p = 2. [Hint: Use the duplication formula
for the gamma function.}

4.39. (Sec. 4.4) Prove that (30) is the uniformly most powerful test of R= 0 based
on ,. [Hint: Use the Neyman-Pearson fundamental lemma.]

4.40. (Sec. 4.4) Prove that (47) is the unique unbiased estimator of ip· based on R2.

4.41. The estimates of I-l and I in Problem 3.1 are

i = (185.72 151.12 183.84 149.24)',

95.29J3 52.8683 : 69.6617 46.1117

52.8683 54.3600 : 51.3117 35.0533
s= ..........................................................
69.6617 51.3117 : 100.8067 56.5400
46.1117 35.053;) . 56.5400 45.0233

(a) Find the estimaLe!' of the parameters of the conditional distribution of

(X3' x 4) given (x I> x 2); that i!', find S21 S I-II and S22.1 = S22 - S21 Sij I S 12'
(b} Find the partial correlation ':14'12'
(c) Use Fisher's Z to find a confidence interval for P34.12 with confidence 0.95.
(d) Find the sample multiple correlation coefficients between x:, and (x p x2)
and between x 4 and (xl> X2~'
(e) Test the hypotheses that X3 is independent of (XI' X2) and x 4 is indepen-
dent of (XI' X2) at significance levels 0.05.

4.42. Let the Components of X correspond to scores on tests in arithmetiC speed

(XI)' arithmetic power (X2 ), memory for words (X3 ), memory for meaningful
symbols (X4 ), and memory for meaningless symbols (XJ. The observed correia·
168 SAMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

tions in a sample of 140 are [Kelley (1928)]

1.0000 0.4248 0.0420 0.0215 0.0573

0.4248 1.0000 0.1487 0.2489 0.2843
0.0420 0.1487 1.0000 0.6693 0.4662
0.0215 0.2489 0.6693 1.0000 0.6915
0.0573 0.2843 0.4662 0.6915 1.0000

(a) Find the partial correlation between X 4 and X s, holding X3 fixed.

(b) Find the partial correlation between XI and Xl' holding X 3• X 4 , and Xs
fixed.
(c) Find the multiple correlation between XI and the set X 3, XI' and Xs'
(d) Test the hypothesis at the 1% significance level that arithmetic speed is
independent of the three memory scores.

V
4.43. (Sec. 4.3) Prove that if P'j-q+ I, ... , P == 0, then N - 2 - (p - q) ',j'q+ I, " .. p/
,; 1 - ',~.q+ I .... , p is distributed according tothet-distributionwith N - 2 - (p - q)
degrees of freedom.

4.44. (Sec. 4.3) Let X' = (XI' Xl' X(2),) have the distribution N(p., ~). The condi-
tional distribution of XI given X 2 == Xl and X(2) = x(2) is .

where

The estimators of Yl and 'Yare defined by

Show Cz == a l z.3, •..• p/a22'3,. .. ,p- [Him: Solve for c in terms of C2 and the a's, and
substitute.]

4.45. (Sec. 4.3) In the notation of Problem 4.44, prove

PROBLEMS 169

Hint: Use

a.,.,
a.
II 2•.. "P =a II - (c.,
f
C )
--
- ( a (2)
4.46. (Sec. 4.3) Prove that 1/a22.3•.. ., I' is the element in the upper left-hand corner
of

4.47. (Sec. 4.3) Using the results in Problems 4.43-4.46, prove that the test for
PI2.3 ..... p = 0 is equivalent to the usual t-test for 1'2 = o.

4.48. Missing observations. Let X = (yl Z')', where Y has p components and 1 has q
components, be distributed according to N(fJ., I), where

(:: 1,
Let M observations be made on X, and N M additional observations be made
on Y. Find the maximum likelihood estimates of fJ. and I. [Anderson 0957).]
[Hint: Express the likelihood function in terms of the marginal density of Yand
the conditional density of 1 given Y.]

4.49. Suppose X is distributed according to N(O, I), where

I= (~,
p'

Show that on the basis of one observation, x' = (XI' x:" Xl)' we can obtain a
confidence interval for p (with confidence coefficient 1 - ad by using as end-
points of the interval the solutions in t of

where xj( 0:) is the significance point of the x2-distribution with three degreeg
of freedom at significance level 0:.
CHAPTER 5

The Generalized T 2-Statistic

5.1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most important groups of problems in univariate !l1atistic~ relates

to the mean of i.1 giv~n distribution when the variance of the distribution is
unknown. On the bu};j:.; of a :>ampk' one may wish to decide whether the
mean is l!qual to tl number specified in advance, or one may wish to give an
interval within which the mean lies. The statistic usually used in univariate
statistics is the difference between the mean of the sample x and the
hypothetical population mean fL divided by the sample standard deviation s.
If the distribution sampled is N( fL. (T:.'), then

r>:1 I: - fL
{= yNr v - -
s

has the well-known t-distribution with N - 1 degrees of freedo n, where N is

the number of observations in the sample. On the basis of this fact, one can
set up a test of tile hypothesis fL = P.O' where 1-'0 is specified, or one can set
up a confiden('e interval for the unknown parameter 1-'.
The multivariate analog of the square of t given in (1) is

(2)

where i is the mean vector or a sample of N, and S is the sample covariance

matrix. It will be shown how this statistic can be used for testing hypotheses
"hoUl the mean vector f.L of the popultltion and for obtaining confidence
regions for the unknown f.L. The distribution of T2 will be obtained when f.L
in (2) is the mean of the distribution sampled and when f.L is different from

.-tll Inrrod/lcliOI/ 10 ,H[ll/iuariale Slalislical Allalysis. Third Edilioll. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

170
 2
5.2 DERIVATION OF THE T ·STATISTIC AND ITS DISTRIBUTION 171

the population mean. Hotelling (1931) proposed the T 2· statistic for two
samples and derived the distribution when IJ. is the population mean.
In Section 5.3 various uses of the T 2-statistic are presented, including
simultaneous confidence intervals for all linear combinations of the mean
vector. A James-Stein estimator is given when ~ is unknown. The power
function 0: the T 2-test is treated in Section 5.4, and the mUltivariate
Behrens-Fisher problem in Section 5.5. In Section 5.6, optimum properties
of the T 2-test are considered, with regard to both invariance and admissibil-
ity. Stein's criterion for admissibility in the general exponential fam:ly is
proved and applied. The last section is devoted to inference about the mean
in elliptically contoured distributions.

5.2. DERIVATION OF THE GENERALIZED r 2·STATISTIC

AND ITS DISTRIBUTION

5.2.1. Derivation of the r 2-Statistic As a Function of the Likelihood

Ratio Criterion
Although the T 2-statistic has many uses, we shall begin our discussion by
showing that the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis H: IJ. = lJ.o on the
basis of a sample from N(IJ.,~) is based on the T 2 -statistic given in (2) of
Section 5.1. Suppose we have N observations XI"'" x N (N > p). The likeli-
hood function is

The observations are given; L is a function of the indeterminates IJ., ~. (We

shall not distinguish in notation between the indeterminates and the parame·
ters.) The likelihood ratio criterion is

maxL(lJ.o, ~)
(2) A = ---.-::I=---_~~_
maxL(IJ., ~) ,
/L. I

that is, the numerator is the maximum of the likelihood function for IJ., ~ in
the parameter space restricted by the null hypothesis (IJ. = lJ.o, ~ positive
definite), and the denominator is the maximum over the entire parameter
space (~ positive definite). When the parameters are unrestricted, the maxi·
mum occurs when IJ., ~ are defined by the maximum likelihood estimators
 2
172 THE GENERALIZED T -STATISTIC

(Section 3.2) of IJ. and I,

(3) iln = i,
(4)

When IJ. = 1J.0, the likelihood function is maximized at

N
(5) I,,, = ~ L (x,,-IJ.())(x,,-lJ.n)'
a=l

by Lemma 3.2.2. Furthermore, by Lemma 3.2.2

( 6)

(7)

Thus the likelihood ratio criterion is

A= Itnl~N = IL(Xa-i)(xa-i)'I~N
(8)
II,.,1!N IL(Xa-IJ.O)(xa-lJ.o)'I~N
IAI{N

where
N
(9) A= L (Xa- i )(Xa- i )'=(N-l)S.
a-"'l

Application of Corollary A.3.1 of the Appendix shows

(10) A2/N = IAI

IA+ [V'N"(i-lJ.o)1[vN(i-lJ.o)]'1
1
=--:------;:----
1 +N(i-1J.0)'A-1(i-1J.0)
1

where
 2 . 173
5.2 DERIVATION OF THE T -STATISTIC AND ITS DISTRIBUTION

The likelih00d ratio test is defined by the critical regIon (region of

rejection)

( 12)

where Ao is chosen so that the probability of (12) when the null hypothesis is
true is equal to the significance level. If we take the ~Nth root of both sides
of (12) and invert, subtract 1, and multiply by N - 1, we obtain

(13)

where

( 14) T~ = (N - 1) ( AD 1/ N - 1).

Theorem 5.2.1. The likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis Jl = Jlo for the
distribution N(Jl, I) is given by (13), where T2 is defined by (11), x is the mean
of a sample of N from N(Jl, I), S is the covan'ance matrix of the sample, and To~
is chosen so that the probability of (13) under the null hypothesis is equal to the
chosen significance level.

The Student t-test has the property that when testing J..I. = 0 it is invariant
with respect to scale transformations. If the scalar random variable X is
distributed according to N( J..I., (T2), then X* = cX is distributed according to
N(cJ..l., C 2{T 2), which is in the same class of distributions, and the hypothesis
tS X = 0 is equivalent to tS X* = tS cX = O. If the observations Xu are trans-
formed similarly (x! = cx o' )' then, for c> U, t* computed from x; is the
same as t computed from Xa' Thus, whatever the unit of measurement the
statistical result is the same.
The generalized T2-test has a similar property. If the vector random
variable X is distributed according to N(Jl, I), then X* = CX (for ICI 0) is'*
distlibuted according to N( CJl, CI C'), which is in the same class of distribu-
tions. The hypothesis tS X = 0 is equivalent to the hypothesis tS X'" = tSCx = O.
ex
If the observations xa are transformed in the same way, x: = a' then T* ~
c'Jmputed on the basis of x: is the same as T2 computed on the basis of Xa'
This follOWS from the facts that i* = ex and A = CAC' and the following
lemma:

Lemma ,5.2.1. For any p x p nonsingular matrices C and H und (In),

vector k,

(15)
174 THE GENERAliZED T2~STATISTIC

Proal The right-hand side of (IS) is

(16) (CkY( CHC / ) -I (Ck) = k'C'( C ' ) -I H-IC-ICk

=k'H-lk. •
We shall show in Section 5.6 that of all tests invariant with respect to such
transformations, (13) is the uniformly most powerful.
We can give a geometric interpretation of the tNth root of the likelihood
ratio criterion,

A2/ N = 1[,~=I(X£l-.r)(xa-.r)'1
(17 )
1[,~~I(Xu -110)( Xu - 110),1 •
in terms of parallelotopes. (See Section 7.5.) In the p-dimensional represen-
tation the numerator of A?'/ N is the sum of squares of volumes of all
parallelotopes with principal edges p vectors, each with one endpoint at .r
and the other at an Xu' The denominator is the sum of squares of volumes of
all parallelotopes with principal edges p vectors, each with one endpoint at
11(\ and the other at Xu' If the sum of squared volumes involving vectors
emanating from i, the "center" of the xu, is much less than that involving
vectors emanating from 11o, then we reject the hypothesis that 110 is the
mean of the distribution.
There is also an interpretalion in the N·dimensional representation. Let
y, = (XII' ".' X, N)' be the ith vector. Then
N 1
(18) IN.r, = E r;:r X,a
a=1 yN
is the distance from the origin of the projection of y, on the equiangular line
(with direction cosines 1/ {N, ... , 1/ {N). The coordinates of the projection
are (x" ... ,x). Then (Xii ~X"""X'N -x,) is the projection of Y on the j

plane through the origin perpendicular to the equiangular line. The numera-
tor of A2/ /I' is the square of the p-dimensional volume of the parallelotope
with principal edges, the vectors (X,I - x" ... , X,N - x). A point (XiI-
fLo;"'" X,N /Lor> is obtained from Yi by translation parallel to the equiangu-
lar line tby a distance IN fLo,). The denominator of >..2/ N is the square of the
yolume of the parallelotope with principal edges these vectors. Then >..2/N is
the ratio of these squared volumes.

5.2.2. The Distribution of T2

In this subsection we will find the distribution of T2 under general condi-
tions, inCluding the case when the null hypothesis is not true. Let T2 = y'S I Y
where Y is distributed according to N( v, I,) and nS is distributed indepen-
dently a!i [,7.. I Z" Z:. with ZI"'" Z" independent, each with distribution
5.2 DERIVATION OF 'iHE T 2-STATISTIC AND ITS DISTRIBUTION 175

N(O, :I). The r 2 defined in Section 5.2.1 is a special case of this with
Y = IN (j - 1L0) and v = IN (IL - 1L0) and n = N - 1. Let D be a nonsingu-
lar matrix such that D:ID' = I, and define

( 19) Y* =DY, S* = DSD', v* =Dv.

Then r2:; y* 'S*-1 Y* (by Lemma 5.2.1), where y* is distributed according

to N( v* ,I) and nS* is distributed independently as l:~-1 Z~Z: I =
l:~'=1 DZa(DZo.)' with the Z! = DZa independent, each with dIstribution
N(O, I). We note v ':I -I v = v* '(I) I v* = v* 'v* by Lemma 5.2.1.
Let the £rst row of a p x p orthogonal matrix Q be defined by
y* I
(20) i= 1, ... ,p;
q}j = vY* 'Y* '

this is permissible because l:f= I qfj

= 1. The other p - 1 rows can be defined
by some arbitrary rule (Lemma A.4.2 of the Appendix). Since Q depends on
y* , it is a random matrix. Now let

U QY*,
(21)
B = QnS*Q'.
From the way Q was defined,

vI = ~q
i... 11 y*
I
= Vy*'y* ,

(22)

Then

btl b I2 blp VI
b 21 b 22 b 2p
°
r2
(23) n = U'B-1U= (VI,O, ... ,0)

bpI b P2

= V 12b ll ,
b PP
°
where (b l }) = B- 1 • By Theorem AJ.3 of the Appendix, l/b ll = b ll
b(l)B 221 b(l) = b ll .2•...• p, where

(24)

and r 2/n = UI2/bu.2..... p = Y* ty* /b U . 2..... p. The conditional distribution of

B given (~ is that of l:~~l~~' where conditionally the Va = QZ: are
 ,
176 THl: GENERALIZED r-STATISTlC

independent, each with distribution N(O, I). By Theorem 4.3.3 b 11.2, •.•• p is
conditionally distributed as L::(t- I) W,}, where conditionally the Wa are
independent, each with the distribution N(O,1); that is, b ll •2.... ,p is condi-
tionally distributed as X2 with n - (p - 1) degrees of freedom. Since the
conditional distribution of b lt •2 , ... ,p does not depend on Q, it is uncondition-
ally distributed as X2, The quantity Y* 'Y* has a noncentral x 2-distribution
with p degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter v* 'v* = v'I. Iv.
Then T2jn is distributed as the ratio of a noncentnll X2 and an independent
Xl.

Theorem 5.2.2. Let T2 = Y'S-l Y, where Y is distributed according to

N(v,I.) wId nS is indepelldently distJibuted as L:~r,~tZtl'Z:r with Zt,,,,,Zn
independent, each with' diStribution N(O, I.). Then (T 2jn)[n - p + l)jp] is
distributed as a noncentral F with p and n - p + I degrees of freedom and
noncentrality parameter v'I. -I v. If v = 0, the distribution is central F.

We shall call this the T 2-distribution with n degrees of freedom.

Corollary 5.2.1. Let XI"'" x N be a sample from N( ..... , I.), and let T2 =
N(i- ..... o),S-l(i ..... 0). The distribution of [T 2j(N-1)][(N-p)jp] is non-
central F with p and /,1 - p degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter
N( ..... - ..... 0)'1. 1(..... - ..... 0). If ..... = ..... !), then the F-distribution is central.

The above derivation of the T 2-distribution is due to Bowker (1960). The

noncentral F-density and tables of the distribution are discusse-d in Section
5.4.
For large samples the distribution of T2 given hy Corollary 5.2.1 is
approximately valid even if the parent distribution is not normal; in this sense
the T 2-test is a robust procedure.

Theorem 5.2.3. Let {X a }, a = 1,2, ... , be a sequence of independently

identically distributed random vectors with mean vector ..... and covariance matrix
I.; letXN=(1jN)L~""IXa' SN=(1j(N-1)]L~_t(Xn-XNXXa iN)" and
TJ=N(iN- ..... O)'SNI(iN- ..... O). Then the limiting distribution of TJ as
N -+ 00 is the X2~distribution with p degrees offreedom if ..... = ..... 0.

Proof By the central limit theorem (Theorem 4.2.3) ihe limiting distribu-
tion of IN (iN - ..... ) is N(O, I.). The sample covariance matrix converges
stochastically to I.. Then the limiting distribution of TJ is the distribution of
Y'I. 1 Y, where Y has the distribution N(O, I.). The theorem follows from
Theorem 3.3.3. •
5.3 USES OF THE T 2-STATISTIC 177

When the null hypothesis is true, T2/n is distributed as xilx}-p+I' and

A2/ N given by (10) has the distribution of x/;-P+ J I( X/;-PT J + x;). The
density of V = Xa2 /( X} + xl), when X} and X; are independent. is

(25)

this is the density of the bera distribution with pafHmctcr~ ~/l and ~b ~ ~

(Problem 5.27). Thus the distribution of A2/ N = (1 + Tlln)-I is the beta

distribution with parameters !p and ~(n - p + 1).

5.3. USES OF THE r 2-STATISTIC

5.3.1. Testing the Hypothesis That the Mean Vector Is a Given Vector
The likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis I.l. = I.l.o on the basis of a sample of
N from N(I.l.,:1;) is equivalent to

(1 )

as given in Section 5.2.1. If the significance level is ex, then the lOOex9c point
cf the F-distribution is taken, that is,

(2)

say. The choice of significance level may depend on the power of the test. We
shall di ..,cu~s this in Section 5.4.
The statistic T2 is computed from i and A. The vectOr A-I(.x - Ill)) = b
is the solution of Ab = i - I.l.o. Then T2 I(N - 1) = N(i - I.l.o)/ b.
Note that' T2 I(N - 1) is the nonzero root of

(3) IN(i-l.l.o)( i-I.l.o)' - AAI = o.

Lemma 5.3.1. If v is a vector of p components and if B is a nOllsinglilar
p X P matri...;, then v /B -I V is the nonzero root of

(4) Ivv' - ABI = O.

Proof The nonzero root, say AI' of (4) is associated with a charClcteristic
vector ~ satisfying

(5)
178 THE GENERALIZED T 2 -STATISTIC

------f------- ml

Figure 5.1. A confidence ellipse.

Since AI '* 0, v'l3 '* O. Multiplying on the left by v'B- i , we obtain

( 6)
•
In the case above v = IN(x - . . . 0) and B = A.

5.3.2. A Confidence Region for the Mean Vector

If f.l is the mean of N( ..... , :1:), the probability is 1 - ex of drawing a sample of
N with mean i and covariance matrix S such that

(7)

Thus, if we compute (7) for a particular sample, we have confidence 1 - ex

that (7) is a true statement concerning ...... The inequality

( 8)

is the interior and boundary of an ellipsoid in the p-dimensional space of m

with center at x and with size and shape depending on S-1 and ex. See
Figure 5. t. We state that ..... lies within this ellipsoid with confidence 1 - ex.
Over random samples (8) is a random ellipsoid.

5.3.3. Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for All Linear Combinations

of the Mean Vector
From the confidence region (8) for ..... we can obtain confidence intervals for
linear functions "y ' ..... that hold simultaneously with a given confidence coeffi-
cient.

Lemma 5.3.2 (Generalized Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality). For a positive

definite matrix S,

(9)
 2
5.3 USES OF THE T -STATISTIC 179

Proof. Let b = -y'yl-y'S-y. Then

(10) 0.:::; (y bS-y), S-1 (y - bS-y)

b-y'SS-ly - y'S-IS-yb + b 2 -y'SS-IS-y
2
(-y'yL
-y'S-y ,

which yields (9).

•
When y = j - p., then (9) implies that

(11) l-y'(x p.)I:5, V-y'S-y(x- p.)'S-I(X - p.)

.:::; V-y'S-y VTp~N-l( a)IN

holds for all -y with probability 1 - a. Thus we can assert with confidence
1 - a that the unknown parameter vector satisfies simultaneously for all -y
the inequalities

( 12)

The confidence region (8) can be explored by setting -y in (12) equal to

simple vectors such as (1,0, ... ,0)' to obtain m" (1, - 1,0, ... ,0) to yield
m 1 - m2, and so on. It shoUld be noted that if only one linear function -y'p.
were of interest, J
7~~ N _ I ( a) = ,;npFp. n _ p + I ( a) I (n - p + I) woulJ be
replaced by tn< a).

5.3.4. Two-Sample Problems

Another situation in which the TZ~statistic is used is one in which the null
hypothesis is that the mean of one normal popUlation is equal to the mean of
the other where the covariance matrices are assumed equal but unknown.
Suppose y~I\ ... , y~) is a sample from N(p.(i), :I), i = 1,2. We wish to test the
•
null hypothesis p.(l) = p.(Z). The vector j(i) is distributed according to
V
N[p.(i\ 01N):I]. Consequently Nl Nzi (Nt + N z ) (y(l) - ,(Z)) is distributed
according to N(O,:I) under the null hypothesis. If we let

(13) S - NI + 1, _2 L~l (yi l

) - ji(l)) (Yil) - y<1))'

+ E(yi
a-"l
2) - ,(2)) (yi2) _ ,(2))') ,
180 THE GENERALJZED r 2-STATISTIC

then (Nl + N2 - 2)S is distributed as L.~~~N2-2ZaZ~, where Za is distributed

according to N(O, :I). Thus

(14)

is distributed as T2 with Nl + N2 - 2 degrees of freedom. The critical region

is

(15)

with significance level a.

A confidence region for ,...(l) - ,...(2) with confidence level 1 - a is the set of
vectors m satisfying

(16) (ji(l) - ji(2) _ m),S-l (ji(1) - ji(2) - m)

Nl +N2 2
:5 NIN2 Tp ,N,+N 2 -2(a)

Simultaneous confidence intervals are

(17) 1'Y,(;(1) _ji(2)) - 'Y'ml .s V'Y'S'Y

An example may be taken from Fisher (1936). Let Xl = sepal length,

X2 = sepal width, X3 = petal length, X 4 = petal width. FIfty observations are

taken from the population Iris versicolor (1) and 50 from the population Iris
setosa (2). See Table 3.4. The data may be summarized (in centimeters) as

( 18) -(1)
x
= [~:~~~)
4.260'
1.326

( 19) x
-(2) = (~:~~)
1.462'
0.246
5.3 USES OF lHE T 2-STATISTIC 181

19.1434 9.0356 9.7634 3.2394

9.0356 11.8658 4.6232 2.4746
(20) 98S=
9.7634 4.6232 12.2978 3.8794
3.2394 2.4746 3.8794 2.4604

The value of T2/98 is 26.334, and (T Z/98) X 91 = 625.5. This value is highly
significant cJmpared to the F-value for 4 and 95 degrees of freedom of 3.52
at the 0.01 significance level.
Simultaneous confidence intervals for the differences of component means
I-tP) - 1-t~2), ; = 1,2,3,4, are 0.930 ± 0.337, - 0.658 ± 0.265, - 2.798 ± 0.270.
and 1.080 ± 0.121. In each case 0 does not lie in the interval. [Since r9~(.01) <
T4 ,98(.01), a univariate test on any component would lead to rejection of the
null hypothesis.] The last two components show the most significant differ-
ences from O.

5.3.5. A Problem of Several Samples

After considering the above example, Fisher considers a third sample drawn
from a population assumed to have the same covariance matri~. He treats the
same measurements on 50 Iris virginica (Table 3.4). There is a theoretical
reason for believing the gene structures of these three species to be such that
the mean vectors of the three populations are related as

(21 )

where 1-1-(3) is the mean vector of the third population.

This is a special case of the following general problem. Let {x~; I}. a =
1, ... ,N" i= 1, ... ,q, be samples from N(I-I-(I), I), i= 1, ... ,q, respectively.
Let us test the hypothesis
q
(22) H: E (311-1-(1) = 1-1-,
i ~ 1

where {31"'" {3q are given scalars and 1-1- is a given vector. Thc criterion i ...

(23)

where

(24)
182 THE GENERAUZED T 2-STATISTIC

( 25)

(26)

This T~ has the T 2-distribution with "£7= 1 N, - q degrees of freedom.

Fisher actually assumes in his example that the covariance matrices of the
three populations may be different. Hence he uses the technique described in
Section 5.5.

5.3.6. A Problem of Symmetry

Consider testing the hypothesis H: J..t, = J..t2 = ' " = J..t p on the basis of a
sample x" ... ,x,y from N(JL,I), where JL'=(J..t" ... ,J..tp )' Let C be any
(p - 1) x p matrL,,( of rank p - 1 such that

(27) CE =0,

where 1::' = O.... , 1). Then

(28) a= I, ... ,N,

has mean CJL and covariance matrix CIC'. The hypothesis H is CJL = O.
The stati~tic to be used is

(29)
where
N
_ I '\'
(30) Y = N i-.J Ya =CX,
a= ,

(31)

N
= N~IC L (xu-x)(xu-x)'C'.
a='
This statistic has the T 2-distribution with N - 1 degrees of freedom for a
(p - I)-dimensional distribution. This T2- statistic is invariant under any
linear transformation in the p - 1 dimensions orthogonal to E. Hence the
statistic is independent of the choice of C.
An example of this sort has been given by Rao (1948b). Let N be the
amount of cork in a boring from the north into a cork tree; let E, S, and W
be defined similarly. The set of amounts in four borings on one tree is
5.3 USES OF THE T 2-STATISTIC 183

considered as an obseLVation from a 4~variate normal distributioll. The

question is whether the cork trees have the same amount of cork on each
side. We make a transformation
YI N-E-W+S,
(32) Y2=S-W,
Y3=N-S.
The number of obseLVations is 28. The vector of means is

8.86)
(33) y 4.50;
\ 0.86
the covariance matrix for y is

128.72 61.41 -21.02)

(34) S= 61.41 56.93 -28.30 .
\ -21.02 - 28.30 63.53

The value of T 2 /(N -1) is 0.768. The statistic 0.768 x 25/3 = 6.402 is to be
compared with the F-significance point with 3 and 25 degrees of freedom. It
is significant at the 1% level.

5.3.7. Improved Estimation of the Mean

In Section 3.5 we considered estimation of the mean when the covariance
matrix was I':nown and showed that the Stein-type e."timation based on this
knowledge yielded lower quadratic risks than did the sample mean. In
particular, if the loss is (m - .... )'I I(m - ....), then

(35)
- 2
( 1- N(x-v)'I (x-v)
)+ x-v +v
( )

is a minimax estimator of .... for any v and has a smaller risk than x when
p ~ 3. When I is unknown, we consider replacing it by an estimator, namely,
a mUltiple of A = nS.

Theorem 5.3.1. When the loss is (m - .... )'I-'(m - .... ), the estimator for
p ~ 3 given by

(36) (1 - a
N(x- v)'A (x- v)
)( - ) +v
x-v

has smaller risk than x and is minimax/or 0 < a < 2(p - 2)/(n - p + 3), and
the risk is minimized/or a = (p - 2)/(n - p + 3).
184 THE GENERALIZED r 2 -STAllSTIC

Proof As in the case when I is known (Section 3.5.2), we can make a

transformation that carries (lIN)I to I. Then the problem is to estimate j.L
based on Y with the distribution N(j.L, I) and A = r.~= 1Za Z:, where
Zl"'" Zn are independently distributed, each according to N(O, I), and the
loss function is (m - j.L)'(m - j.L). (We have dropped a factor of N.) The
difference in risks is

(37)

.:lR( ..) ~ S.{IIY- ..II' -II( 1- (Y_ V)':-I(y- v) )(Y -v) +v - .. n

The proof of Theorem 5.2.2 shows that (Y - v)' A -I (Y - v) is di~tributed as

I/Y - v/l2 IX}-p+l' where the Xn2_p+ 1 is independent of Y. Then the differ-
ence in risks is

2
tlR _ 2a Xn-p+l
2 P
y y a2( Xn-p+1 ) 2}
( /lY-vI1 iE(
$
(38) (j.L)- np' 2 ,-,ul)( , - V1) - IIY-vI1 2

2 2
=$ (2a(p-2)xn _p+1 _ a (xLp+l)2)
p. /lY - vll 2 IIY - vl1 2

= {2( P - 2) (n - P + 1) a

- [2( n - p + 1) + (n - p + 1) 2] a2} $ _1_.

2
P.IIY_vI1

The factor in braces is n - p + 1 times 2(p - 2)a - (n - p + 3)a 2, which

is positive for 0 < a < 2( p - 2) I(n - p + 3) and is maximized for a =
(p - 2)/(n -p + 3). •

The improvement over the risk of Y is (n - p + 1)( p - 2)2/(n - p + 3)'

$p.IIY - vll- 2 , as compared to the improvement (p - 2)2$p./lY - v/l- 2 of m(y)
of Section 3.5 when I is known.
5.4 DISTRIBUTION UNDER ALTERNATIVES; PowER FUNCTION 185

Corollary 5.3.l. Tile estimator lor p ;:::. .1

(39) (1 N(X-V)':- (X-V)) + (x v) +V

has smaller risk than (36) and is minimal' for 0 < a < 2( p 2) I(n - p + 3).

Proof This corollary follows from Theorem 5.3.1 and Lemma 3.5,2. •

The risk of (39) is 1I0t necessarily minimi:ed at a = (p - 2)/(n - p + 3).

but that value seems like a good choice. This is the estimator (I R) of Section
3.5 with I replaced by [l/(n - p + 3)]A.
When the loss function is (m - .... YQ(m - .... ), where Q is an arbitrary
positive definite matrix, it is harder to present a uniformly improved estima~
tor that is attractive. ThE. estimators of Section 3.5 can be used with l:
replaced by an estimate.

5.4. THE DISTRIBUTI01\ OF r2

UNDER ALTERNATIVE
HYPOTHESES; THE POWER FUNCTION

In Section 5.2.2 we showed that (T~ 11lXN - p)lp has a noncentral F-distri·
bution. In this section we shall discuss the noncentral F-distribution. its
tabulation, and applications to procedures based on T2.
The noncentral F-distribution is defined .IS the distribution of the ratio of
a noncentral X2 and an independent X~ divided by the ratio of correspond~
ing degrees of freedom. Let V have the noncentral .¥~-distribution with p
degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter T:: (as given in Theorem
3.3.5), and let W be independently distributed as x:: with m degrees of
freedom. We shall find the density of F = (Vip) I( WI 111), which is the
noncentral F with noncentrality parameter T~. The joint density of V and W
is (28) of -Section 33 multiplied by the density of W, which is
2- imr-1(tm)w!m-'e- t..... The joint density of F and W (do = pwdflm) is

(1)

.~
m
r. (T2)~~_
{3=!) 4 {3

The marginal density, obtained by integrating (1) with respect to w from 0

to 00, is

(2)
186 THE GENERAUZED r 2 -STATISTIC

Theorem S.4.1. If V has a noncentral x 2-distribution with p degrees of

freedom and noncentrality parameter T2, and W has an independent X 2-distribu·
fioll with m degrees of freedom, then F = (VIp) I( WI m) has the density (2).

The density (2) is the density of the noncentral F·distribution.

If T2 = N(i - ""oYS-l(i - ""0) is based on a sample of N from N(,..., 1-),
then (T"'jnXN - p)lp has the noncentral F·distribution with p and N - P
degrees of freedom and noncentrality parameter N(,... - ""oYI-l(,... - ""0) =
T2. From (2) we find that the density of T2 is

e- x (T2/2)i3[t2j(N-1)}!P+i3-lr(!N+.8)
(3) (N-1)r(!<N-p)] (3~O t3!r(tp+.8)[l+t2/(N-1)ltN+~

where

.. _ ~ r(a+,3)r(b)x~
(4) lF1(a,b,x) - {3~O r(a)r(b+ .8).8!'

The density (3) is the density of the noncentral T 2-distribution.

Tables have been given by Tang (1938) of the probability of accepting the
null hypothesis (that is, the probability of Type II error) for various values of
T:! and for significance levels 0.05 and 0.01. His number of degrees of

freedolll fl is our p (1(1)8], his f2 is our n - p + 1 (2,4(1)30,60,00], and his

noncentrality parameter <p is related to our T 2 by

(5)

[I (~)3(1 )8]. His accompanying tables of significance points are for T2/(T2 +
N -1).
As an example, suppose p = 4, n - p + 1 = 20, and consider testing the
null hypothesis,... 0 at the 1% level of significance. We would like to know
the probability, say, that we accept the null hypothesis whell <p = 2.5 (T 2 =,
31.25). It is 0.227. If we think the disadvantage of accepting the null
hypothesis when N, ,..., and I are such that T2 = 31.25 is less than the dis-
advantage of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true, then we may find it
5.5 TWO-SAMPLE PROBLEM WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES 187

reasonable to conduct the test as assumed. However, if the disadvantage of

one type of error is about equal to that of the other, it would seem reason-
able to bring down the probability of a Type II error. Thus, if we use a
significance level of 5%, the probability of Type II error (for cP = 2.5) is only
0.043.
Lehmer (1944) has computed tables of cP for given significance level and
given probability of Type II error. Here tables can be used to see what value
of r2 is needed to make the probability of acceptance of the null hypothesis
*"
sufficiently low when jJ. O. For instance, if we want to be able to reject the
hypothesis jJ. = 0 on the basis of a sample for a given jJ. and I, we may be
able to choose N so that NjJ.'I-1jJ. = r2 is sufficiently large. Of course, the
difficulty wit~ these considerations is that we usually do not know exactly the
values of jJ. and I (and hence of r2) for which we want the probability of
rejection at a certain value.
The distribution of T2 when the null hypothesis is not true was derived by
different methods by Hsu (1938) and Bose and Roy (1938).

5.5. THE lWO-SAMPLE PROBLEM WITH UNEQUAL

COVARIANCE MATRICES

If the covariance matrices are not the same, the T 2-test for equality of mean
vectorS has a probability of rejection under the null hypothesis that depends
on these matrices. If the difference between the matrices is small or if the
sample sizes are large, there is no practical effect. However, if the covariance
matrices are quite different and/or the sample sizes are relatively small, the
nominal significance level may be distorted. Hence we develop a procedure
with assigned significance level. Let {x~)}, ex = 1, ... ,~, be samples from
N(jJ.(I), Ii)' i = 1,2 We wish to test the hypothesis H: jJ.(l) = jJ.(2). The mean
i(l) of the first sample is normally distributed with expected value

(1) tB'i(1) = jJ.(I)

and covariance matrix

(2)

Similarly, the mean i(2) of the second sample is normally distributed with
expected value

(3)
188 THE GENERALIZED T 2 -STATISTIC

and covariance matrix

(4)

Thus i( I) - i(2) has mean 1-'-( I) - 1-'-(2) and covariance matrix (1/N 1 ) I I +
(I/N2 )'I 2 • We cannot use the technique of Section 5.2, however, because

NJ N2
(5) E (x~)-j(l»)(X~I)_j(l))'+ E (X~2)_j(2»)(X~2)-i(2»)'
a=1 a=1

does not have the Wishart distribution with covariance matrix a multiple of
(l/N1)II + (l/N 2 )I 2 •
If Nl = N2 = N, say, we can use the T 2-test in an obvious way. Let
Ya = x~l) - X~2) (assuming the numbering of the observations in the two
samples is independent of the observations themselves). Then Ya is normally
distributed with mean 1-'-(1) - 1-'-(2) and covariance matrix II + I 2 , and
Yl' ... 'YN are independent. Let ji =(l/N)E~=IYa=i(l) -i(2), and define S
by

N
(6) (N-l)S= E (Ya-ji)(Ya-ji)'
a=1
N
= E (x~) _X~2) -i(i) +j(2»)(X~I) _X~2) -i(l) +X(2»)'.
a=1

Then

(7)

is suitabl~ for testing the hypothesis 1-'-(1) - 1-'-(2) = 0, and has the T 2-distribu-
tion with N - 1 degrees of freedom. It should be observed that if we had
known II = I 2 , we would have used a T 2-statistic with 2N - 2 degrees of
freedom; thus we have lost N - 1 degrees of fr~edom in constructing a test
which is independent of the two covariance matrices. If Nl = N2 = 50 as in
the example in Section 5.3.4, then T4: 4 '1(,0l) = 15.93 as compared to ~:98(.01)
= 14.52.
Now let -us turn our attention to the case of NI =1= N 2 • For cor,venience, let
NI < N2 • Then we define

1 NJ N2
(8) Y
a
=x(l) -
a Ifi _I
N2
X(2)
a
+
-INN
1
E X(2) -
2 {3= 1
(3
~
N
E X(2)
2 y= I
"Y'
a= 1, ... ,NI
5.5 TWO-SAMPLE PROBLEM WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES 189

The covariance matrix of Ya and Yf3 is

(10)

Thus a suitable statistic for testing f.L( I) - f.L(2) = 0, which has the T 2-distribu-
tion with N1 - 1 degrees of freedom, is

( 11)
where
NJ
( 12) Y= ~ E Ya =j(l) _j(2)
1 a= 1

and
NJ NJ
(13) (N I -l)S= E (Ya-Y)(Ya-Y)'= E (ua-u)(ua-u)',
a=1 a=1

where u = (1/Nl)r.Z~IUa and u a =X~l) - ~NJN2X<;), a = 1, ... , N l.

This procedure was suggested by Scheffe (1943) in the univariate case.
Scheffe showed that in the univariate case this technique gives the shortest
confidence intervals obtained by using the t-distribution. The advantage of
the method is that j(l) - f(2) is used, and this statistic is most relevant to
f.L0 ) - f.L(2). The sacrifice of observations in estimating a covariance matrix is
not so important. Bennett (1951) gave the extension of the procedure to the
multivariate case.
This approach can be used for more general cases. Let {x~)}, a = 1, ... , ~,
i = 1, ... , q, be samples from N(f.L(Il, I,), i = 1, ... , q, respectively. Consider
testing the hypothesis
q
( 14) H: E (31f.L(') = f.L,
J'" I

where f31"'" f3 q are given scalars and f.L is a given vector. If the ~ are
unequal, take NI to be the smalJest. Let

(15) Ya = r.
f3lx~l) + i~2 f31-J ~ (X~l) - ~
I 1.8=1
Ex~) + 1
~NI~
EX(ll)
)'=1 Y •
190 THE GENERALIZED T 2 ·STATISTIC

Let j and S be defined by

. 1 Nt
( 17) j(l) = N I: x~),
I {3- I

NJ
(IX) (Nt -I)S= I: (Yu-y)(y.. -j),·
a"'"

Then
( 19) T2 = N, (y - ..,) t S-l (y - ..,)

is suitable for testing H, and when the hypothesis is true, this statistic has the
T 2-distribution for dimension p with N, - 1 degrees of freedom. If we let
U et = [:'-1 f3IVNI/N;x~}, a = 1, ... , N 1, then S can be defined as

Nt
(20) (N I -1)S I: (u" u)(u" u)'.
0'=1

Another problem that is amenable to this kind of treatment is testing the

hypothesis that two subvectors have equal means. Let x = (x( 1)', X(2) ')' be
distributed normally with mean.., = (..,(1)', ..,(2),)' and covarirnce matrix

(21)

We assume that x( I) and X(2) are each of q components. Then y = x(l) - X(2)
is distributed normally with mean ..,(1) - ..,(2) and covariance matrix Iy = III
- I~1 - I12 + I 22 . To test the hypothesis ..,(1) = ..,(2) we use a T2-stat istic
NY 1 S ~- J y, whe re the mean vector and covariance matrix of the sample are
partitioned similarly to .., and I.

5.6. SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF THE r 2·TEST

5.6.1. Optimal Invariant Tests
In this section we shall indicate that the T 2-test is the best in certain classes
of tests and :-;ketch briefly the proofs of the~e results.
The hypothesis.., 0 is to be tested on the basis of the N observations
xl'" ., x N from N(.." 1:). First we consider the class of tests based on the
 2
5.6 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF THE T -TEST 191

statistics A = E(x a - iXxa - i)' and i which are invariant with respect to
the transformations A* = CAC' and i* = ex, where C is nonsingular. The
transformation x: = Ct a leaves the problem invariant; that is, in terms of x!
we test the hypothesis Gx: = 0 given that xi, ... , x~ are N observations
from a multivariate normal population. It seems reasonable that we require a
solution that is also invariant with respect to these transformations; that is,
we look for a critical region that is not changed by a nonsingular linear
transformation. (The defin.tion of the region is the same in different coordi-
nate systems.)

Theorem 5.6.1. Given the observations Xl"'" X N from N(fL, I), of all
tests of fL = 0 based on i and A = E(x a - i)(x a - i)' that are invariant with
respect to transformations i* = ex, A* = CAC' (C nonsingular), the T2_ test is
uniformly most poweiful.

Proof. First, as we have seen in Section 5.2.1, any test based on T2 is

invariant. Second, this function is essentially the only invariant, for if f(i, A)
is invariant, then f(x, A) = f(i* > I), where only the first coordinate of i* is
different from zero and it is ...;i' A -I i. (There is a matrix C such that
ex = i* and CAC' = I.) Thus f(i, A) depends only on i' A IX. Thus an
invariant test must be based on if A-I X. Third, we can apply the Neyman-
Pearson fundamental lemma to the distribution of T2 [(3) of Section 5.4] to
find the uniformly mo:o;t powerful test based on T1. against a simple alterna-
tive l' 2 = N ...: I -I fL. The most powerful test of l' 2 - 0 is based on the ratio of
(3) of Section 5.4 to (3) with 1'2 = O. The critical region is

(1)

II
I 2 In)!P- I (1 + t 2I n( t(
f(tp)
II + I)f [ Hn + 1)]

== fOp) e-~T2E (1'2/2)af[hn+1)+aJ( t 21n )a

f[Hn+1)] a=O alf(!p+a) 1+t 21n

The right~hand side of 0) is a strictly increasing function of (t 2 In) 1(1 + t 2 In),

hence of t 2 • Thus the inequality is equivalent to t 2 > k for k suitably chosen.
Since this does not depend on the alternative 1'2, the test is uniformly most
powerful invariant. •
192 mE GENERALIZED T 2 -STATISTIC

Definition 5.6.1. A critical function I/I(.r, A) is a function with values

between 0 and 1 (inclusive) such that GI/I(x, A) = e, the significance level, when
II- = O.

A randomized test consists of rejecting the hypothesis with probability

I/I(x, B) when x = x and A = B. A non randomized test i"i defined when
I/I(x, A) takes on only the values 0 and 1. Using the form of the
Neyman-Pearson lemma appropriate for critical functions, we obtain the
following corollary:

Corollary 5.6.1. On the basis of observations Xl, ••• , X N from N(II-, I). of
all randomized tests based on i and A that are invariant with respect to
transformations x* = ex, A* = CACI (C nonsingular), the T2~test is untformly
most powerful.

Theorem 5.6.2. On the basis of observations Xl."" X N from N(II-, ~), of

all tests of II- = 0 that are invariant with respect to transformations x! = CXa
(C nonsingular), the T 2-test is a uniformly most powerful test; that is, the T2~test
is at least as powerful as any other invariant test.

Proof. Let I/I(x l ,.,., X N) be the critical function of an invariant test. Then

Since x, A are sufficient statistics for 11-, I, the expectation G[ 1/1 ( x I' ... ,
x N )lx,.4] depends only on x, A, It is invariant and has the same power as
I/I(x I" .. , X N)' Thus each test in this larger class can be replaced by one in
the smaller class (depending only on x and A) that has identical power.
Corollary 5.6.1 completes the proof. •

Theorem 5.6.3. Given observations XI' • , • , X N from N(II-, I), of all tests of
II- = 0 based on x and A = E(xa - i)(x a - xY with power depending only on
NII-/I-III-, the T 2-test is uniformly most powerful.

Proof. We wish to reduce this theorem to Theorem 5.6.1 by idendfying the

class of tests with power depending on Nil-' I -III- with the class of invariant
tests. We need the following definition:

Definition 5.6.2. A test 1/1 ( Xl' .•. I X N) is said to be almost invariant if

for all XI,,,,,XN except for a set ofx1"",x N of Lebesgue measure zero; this
exception set may depend on C.
5.6 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF THE r:!-TEST 193

It is clear that Theorems 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 hold if we extend the definition of
invariant test to mean that (3) holds except for a fixed set of .:1"'" X,' of
measure 0 (the set not depending on C). It has been shown by Hunt and
Stein [Lehmann (1959)] that in our problem almost invariancc implies invari-
ance (in the broad sense).
Now we wish to argue that if !/I(x, A) has power depending only on
N~'I. I~, it is almost invariant. Since the power of !/ICx, A) depends only on
N~'I. -I~, I.he power is

(4) GfL .I. !/I ( i, A) == GCI fL. CI !.(Clr!/l( x, A)

== GfL.I.!/I(CX,CAC').

The second and third terms of (4) are merely different ways of writing the
same integral. Thus

(5) GfL,:t[!/I(X, A) - !/I(CX,CAC')] == 0,

identically in ~,I.. Since x, A are a complete sufficient set of statistics for

~,I. (Theorem 3.4.2), fCx, A) = !/I(X, A) - !/ICCX,CAC') = 0 almost everv-
where. Theorem 5.6.3 follows. •

As Theorem 5.6.2 follov.s from Theorem 5.6.1, so does the following

theOrem from Theorem 5.6.:::

Theorem 5.6.4. On the basis of observatiollS X[1"" X N from N(~. :!). of

all tests of ~ = 0 with power depending only on N~'I. I~, the T:!-test is a
uniformly most poweiful test.

Theorem 5.6.4 waS first proved by Simaika (1941). The results and proofs
given in this section follow Lehmann (1959). Hsu (1945) has proved an optimal
property of the T 2·test that involves averaging the power over ~ and I..

5.6.2. Admissible Tests

We now turn to the question of whether the T 2-test is a good test compared
to all possible tests; the comparison in the previous section was to the
restricted class of invariant tests. The main result is that the T~-test is
admissible in the class of all tests; that is, there is no other procedure that is
better.

Definition 5.6.3. A test T* of the null hypothesis flo: wE no

agaillst the
alternative WEn, (disjoint from nu) is admissible if there exists no otller test 1
19~ THE GENERAUZI D r2 -ST ATISTI(;

mch that

(6) Pr{Reject Hoi T, w} : : ; Pr{Reject Hoi T* , w},

(7) Pr{Reject Hoi T, (v} ;;:: Pr{Reject Hoi T*, w},

with strict inequality for at least one w.

The admissibility of the T2-test follows from a theorem of Stein (1956a)

that applies to any exponential family of distributions.
;\n exponential family of distributions (--:,11, .'16, m, 0, P) consists of a finite-
dimensional Euclidean space 'ii, a measure m on the u-algebra ge of all
ordinal) Borel sets of ~/I, a subset n of the adjoint space i~111 (the linear
space of all real-valued linear functions on Ojl) such that

(8) WEn,

anu P, the function on 0 to the set of probability measures on 2?3 given by

A E@.

The family of normal distributions N(v., I.) constitutes an exponential

family, for the density can be written

(9)

We map from ,1'" to 0..111; the vector y = (y(1)" y(2),), is composed of y(1; = x
2 2 X1X2'
an d y (2) -- ( Xl> . 2 2 2), 1~h e vecor
••• ' X 1X p ,X 2 " . " X p •
t - (1)1 ,00(2),),'"
00- 00 1"
1
composed of w(1)=:1:- v. and 00(2)= - t(ull,U12, ... ,ulp,u22, ... ,uPPY,
where (U 11 ) = ~ -1; the transformation of parameters is one to one. The
measure meA) of a set A E::J23 is the ordinary Lebesgue measure of the se'i of
x that map~ into the ~et A. (Note that the prohability mea!;Ure in all is not
defined by a density.)

Theorem 5.6.5 (Stein). Let (0..1/1, :-1(3, m, 0, P) be an exponential family

and 0 0 a nonempty proper subset of o. (D Let A be a subset of W that is closed
and convex. (ii) Suppose that for every vector 00 E OJ/' and real c for which
{y I w' y > c} ami /I are di.\joillt. there C'xists WI E 0 such that for arbitrarily large
A the vector WI + Aw EO - O()' Then the test with acceptance region A is admis-
sible j()r testing the hypothesis that W E no against the alternative 00 EO - 0 0 •
5.6 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF THE T 2 -TEST 195

Figure 5.2

The cond~tions of the theorem are illustrated in Figure 5.2, which is drawn
simultaneously in the space OY and the set fl.

Proof The critical function of the test with acceptance region A is

cpiy) = O. yEA, and cpiy) = 1, y $A. Suppose cp(y) is the critical function
of a better test, that is,

(10) f cp(y) dPw(y) ~ f CPA(y) dP(O(y),

( 11) f cp(y) dP(O(Y) ~ f cpAy) dP(O(y), 00 Efl- flo,

with strict inequality for some 00; we shall show that this assumption leads to
a contradiction. Let B = {yl cp(y) < I}. (If the competing test is nonrandom-
ized, B is its acceptance region.) Then

where A is the complement of A. The m-meaSUre of the set (12) is positive;

otherwise cpA(y) = cp(y) almost everywhere, and (10) and (11) would hold
with equality for all w. Since A is convex, there exists an 00 and a c such that
the intersection of An Band {yl 00' y > c} has positive m-meaSUre. (Since A
is closed, A is open and it can be covered with a denumerable collection of
open spheres, for example, with rational radii and centers with rational
coordinates. Because there is a hyperplane separating A and each sphere,
there exists a denumerable coilection of open half-spaces H j disjoint from A
that coverS A. Then at least one half-space has an intersection with An B
with positive m-measure.) By hypothesis there exists 00 1 Efland an arbitrar-
ily large A such that

(13)
196 THE GENERALIZED T 2 ·STATISTIC

Then

(14) f[ tflA(y) - tfl(y)] dPwly)

= I/I(~A) f[tflA(y) tfl(y)]e WAY dm(y)

= 1/1 ( WI) eAC{f [<PA(Y) - tfl(y)]eA(w'Y-C)dPU)ly)

1/1 ( W A ) w'y>c

+f [<PA(Y) - <p(y)]eA(w':'-C)dPwlY)}'
w'Y;$C

For 00') > C we have tfliy) 1 and <piy) <p(y) ~ 0, and (yl <piy) - <p(y)
> O} has positive measure; therefore, the first integral in the braces ap-
proaches 00 as A -+ 00. The second integral is bounded because the integrand
is bounded by 1, and hence the last expression is positive for sufficiently large
A. This contradicts (11). •

This proof was given by Stein (1956a). It is a generalization of a theorem

of Birnhaum (1955).

Corollary 5.6.2. If the conditions of Theorem 5.6.5 hold except that A is

not necessarily closed, but the boundary of A has m-measure O. then the
conclusion of Theorem 5.6.5 holds.

Proof. The closure of A is convex (Problem 5.18), and the test with
acceptance region equal to the closure of- A differs from A by a set of
probability 0 for all 00 E n. Furthermore,
(15) An{ylw'y>c}=0 ~ Ac{ylw'ys;c}
~ closure A c {yl 00' y s; c}.

Th("n Theorem 5.6.5 holds with A replaced by the closure of A.. •

Theorem 5.6.6. Based on observations Xl"'" XN from N(p" I,),

Hotelling's T 2·test is admissible for testing the hypothesis p, = O.
5.6 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF THE T~-TEST 197

Proof To apply Theorem 5.6.5 we put the distribution of the observations

into the form of an exponential family. By Theorems 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 we can
transform x1>".,x N to Zcc= r.~=ICll/3X/3' where (c tt /3) is orthogonal and Z,II,
= iNf. Then the density of Zl'" .• ZN (with respect to Lebesgue measure) is

(16)

The vector y=(y!I),yC'V)' is composed of yll\=ZS (=FNx) and )'1:'=

(b ll , 2b J2 , ••• , 2b 1P ' b 22 , ••• , bpp )', where

N
(17) B= E z"z:.
a=1

The vector 00 = (00(1)',00(2),)' is composed of 00(1) = {NI -11.1. and w(~) =

- '2I( cr II ,U 12 , " " U Ip • U 22 , ..•• (T 1'1')' • Th e measure
. m (A)'IS the e
L h esgut:'
measure of the set of ZI"'" ZN that maps into the set A.

Lemma 5.6.1. Let B =A + ~xi'. Then

~r::::'A-I-X= Ni'B-lx
( 18) 1'1 X ---
1-Ni'B- I x
Proof of Lemma. If we let B =A + fNxfNx' in (10) of Section 5.2. we
obtain by Corollary A.3.1

( 19) 1 = >.,211\' = IB - fNxfNx'l

1+T2j(N-1) IBI
=l-Ni'B- I x. •
Thus the a~ceptance region of a T 2 -test is

(20) A = {ZN' Blz;"'B-lz,\,::; k, B positive definite}

for a suitable k.
The function Z;"'B-IZ N is conveX in (Z, B) for B positive definite (PlOblem
5.17). Therefore, the set zNB-IZ N ::;; k is convex. This shows that the set A is
convex. Furthermore, the closure of A is convex (Problem 5.18). and the
probability of the boundary of A is O.
Now consider the other condition of Theorem 5.6.5. Suppose A is disjoint
with the half-space

(21) C < oo'y = V'Z,\' - ~ tr AD,

198 THE GENERALIZED T 2 -STATISTIC

where ~\ is a symmetric matrix and B is positive semidefinite. We shall take

Al = I, We want to show that 00 1 + Aoo En - no; that is, that VI + Av -+ 0
(which is trivial) and Al + AA is positive definite for A> O. This is the case
when !\ is positive semidefinite. Now we shall show that a half-space (21)
disjoint with A and A not positive semidefinil~ implies a contradiction. If A
is not positive semidefinite, it can be written (by Corollary A.4.1 of the.
Appendix)

o
(22) -I
o
where D is nonsingular. If A is not positive semidefinite, - / is not vacuous,
because its order is the number of negative characteristic roots of A. Let
.:, = (l/Y}~1l and

B~(D')-I[~ ~]D-I,
0
(23 ) yl
0

Then

(24 ) oo'y =
1
_V'ZO
y
1 [-/
+ '2tr 0
0
0
yT
0 n
which is greater than c for sufficiently large y. On the other hand

(2~)

which is less than k for sufficiently large y. This contradicts the fact that (20)
and (2l) are disjoint. Thus the conditions of Theorem 5.6.5 are satisfied and
the theorem is proved. •

This proof is due to Stein.

An alternative proof of admisSibility is to show that the T 2-test is a proper
Bayes procedure. Suppose an arbitrary random vector X has density I(xloo)
for wEn. Consider testing the null hypothesis Ho: 00 Eno against the
alternative HI : 00 En - no. Let [10 be a prior finite measure on no, and [11
a prior finite measure on n 1• Then the Bayes procedure (with 0-1 loss
5.7 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 199

function) is to reject H 0 if

f f( xl 00 )fIl( doo)
(26)
f f( xl (0) fIo( doo )
for some c (0 :$; C :$; 00). If equality in (26) occurs with probability 0 for all
00 E no, then the Bayes procedure is unique and hence admissible. Since the
meaSUre~ are finite, they can be normed to be probability meaSUres. For the
T2-test of Ho: IJ.. = 0 a pair of measures is suggested in Problem 5.15. (This
pair is not unique.) Th(" reader can verify that with these measures (26)
reduces to the complement of (20).
Among invariant tests it was shown that the T 2-test is uniformly most
powerful; that is, it is most powerful against every value of IJ..' I, - llJ.. among
invariant tests of the specified significance level. We can ask whether the
T 2-test is ('best" against a specified value of lJ..'I,-11J.. among all tests. Here
H best" can be taken to mean admissible minimax; and (( minimax" means

maximizing with respect to procedures the minimum with respect to parame-

ter values of the power. This property was shown in the simplest t:ase of
p = 2 and N = 3 by Girl, Kiefer, and Stein (1963). The property for ~eneIal p
and N waS announced by SalaevskiI (1968). He has furnished a proof for the
case of p = 2 [Salaevskll (1971)], but has not given a proof for p> 2.
Giri and Kiefer (1964) have proved the T 2 -test is locally minimax (as
IJ..' I -11J.. --+ 0) and asymptotically (logarithmically) minimax as 1J..'2; -11J.. --+ 00.

5.7. ELLIPnCALLY CONTOLRED DISTRIBUTIONS

5.7.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

When xl>"" XN constitute a sample of N from

(1)

the sample mean i and covariance S are unbiased estimators of the distribu-
tion mean IJ..=V and covariance matrix I, = (GR2/p )A, where R2=
(X-v)'A-1(X-v) has finite expectation. The T 2-statistic, T 2 =N(i-
IJ..)'S-l(i - IJ..), can be used for tests and confidence regions for IJ.. when I,
(or A) is unknown, but the small-sample distribution of T2 in general is
difficult to obtain. However, the limiting distribution of T2 when N --+ 00 is
obtained from the facts that IN (i - IJ..) ~ N(O, I,) and S.4 I, (Theorem
3.6.2).
200 THE GENERALIZED T 2 -STATISTIC

Theorem 5.7.1. Let Xl>"" , x N be a sample from (1). Assume cffR2 < 00.
Then T2.!4 Xp2.

Proof Theorem 3.6.2 implies that N(i - f,L)'I-I(i - f,L) ~ Xp2 and N(i
- f,L)'I-I(i - f,L) - T2 ~ O. •

Theorem 5.7.1 implies that the procedures in Section 5.3 can be done on
an asymptotic basis for elliptically contoured distributions. For example, to
test the null hypothesis f,L = f,Lo, reject the null hypothesis if

(2)
where Xp2( a) is the a-significance point of the X2 -distribution with p degrees
of freedom the limiting prohahility of (2) when the null hypothesis is true
and N ~ 00 is a. Similarly the confidence region N(i - m)'S-'(X - m) ~
x;(a) has li.niting confidence 1 - a.

5.7.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Let X (N X p) have the density

(3) ICI-Ng[ C- l (X - eN v')'( X - eNv')( C') -1]

based on the left spherical density g(Y'Y). Here Y has the representation
Y g, UR', where U (N X p) has the uniform distribution on O( N X p), R is
lower triangular, and U and R are independent. Then X4: eNv' + UR'C'.
The T 2-criterion to test the hypothesis v = 0 is NX' S- I i, which is invariant
with respect to transformations X ~ XG. By Corollary 4.5.5 we obtain the
following theorem.

Theorem 5.7.2. Suppose X has the density (3) with v = 0 and T2 =

Ni'S-li. Then [T 2/(N-1)][(N-p)/p] has the distribution of Fp,N_p =
(Xp2 /p) /[ x~_p/(N - p)].

Thus the tests of hypotheses and construction of confidence regions at

stated significance and confidence levels are valid for left spherical distribu-
tions.
The T 2-criterion for H: v = 0 is

( 4)
since X 4: UR'C',

(5)
PROBLEMS 201

and

(6) S _l_(X'X-N"xi') = 1 [CRU'URC'-CRiiii'(C'R)']

N-l N-l
CRSu(CR)'.

5.7.3. Linear Combinations

Uhter, Glimm, and Kropf (1996a, 1996h. 1Q96c) have observed that a statisti-
cian can use X' X = CRR'C' when v = 0 to determine a p X q matrix LJ UllJ
base a T-test on the transform Z = XD. Specifically, define

(7)

(8) Sz = N ~ 1 (Z'Z - Nfl') = D'SD,

(9)

Since QNZ g, QNUR'C' g, UR'C' = Z, the matrix Z is based on the left-

spherical YD and hence has the representation Z JIR* where V (N X q)
I,

has the uniform distribution on O(N Xp), independent of R* (upper I

triangular) having the distribution derived from R* R* = Z' Z. The distribu-

I

tion of T 2 /(N-l)is Fq,N_qq/(N-q)-

The matrix D can also involve prior information as well as knowledge of
X' X. If p is large, q can be small; the power of the test based on TJ may be
more powerful than a test based on T2.
IJiuter, Glimm, and Kropf give several examrles of choosing D. One of
them is to chose D (p X 1) as lDiag(X' X)- ~]Ep, where Diag A is a diagonal
matrix with ith diagonal element ail" The statistic TJ is called the standard·
ized sum statistic:

PROBLEMS

5.1. (Sec. 5.2) Let xa be dbtributed according to N(fJ. + ll( Za - i), I), a =
1,. '" N, where i = OjN)[za' Let b == [lj[(za - i)2][x,,(za - i), (N - 2)S =
[[xa i-b(za-i)][xa-x-b(za-i)]" and T2=f.(za-Z)2b'S-lb. Show
that T2 has the r 2-distribution with N 2 degrees of freedom. [Him: See
Problem 3..13.]

5.2. (Sec. 5.2.2) Show that T2 j( N - 1) can be written as R2 j( 1 - R:!) with the cor-
respondcnce" given in Tahle 5.1.
 2
202 THE GENERALIZED r ·srATISTIC

Table 5.1
Section 52 Section 4.4

Zla
Z~l
{Fix Q(l) = !:zlaZ~)
B !:xax'a A
22
= !:Z(2)Z(2),
a a
1 == !:xga all = !:zfa
T2 R2
N-l 1-
p P -1
N n

5.3. (Sec. 5.22) Let

where up. _ •• uN are N numbers and Xl'" _. XN are independent, each with the
distribution N(O, :£). Prove that the distribution of R 2 /(1 - R2) is independent
of u I' ... , uN- [Hint: There is an orthogonal N X N matrix C that carries
(u I> ... , UN) into a vector proportional to (1/ {Fi, .. . ,1/ {ii).]

5.4. (Sec. 5.22) Use Problems 52 and 5.3 to show that [T 2 /(N -l)][(N - p)/p]
has the Fp.N_p·distribution (under the null hypothesis). [Note: This is the
analysis that corresponds to Hotelling's geometric proof (1931).]

5.5. (Sec. 522) Let T2 Ni'S - I X, where .i and S are the mean vector and
covariance matrix of a sample of N from N(p., :£). Show that T2 is distributed
the same when p. is replaled by A = (T, 0, .. . ,0)1, where -r2 = p/:£ -1 p., and :£ is
replaced by 1.

5.6. (Sec. 5.2.2) Let U = [T 2 /tN - l)]j[l + T 2 /(N - 1)]. Show that u =
-yV'(W,)-lV-y', where -y=(1/{Fi, ... ,1/{Fi) and
PROBLEMS

,5.7. (Sec. 5.2.2) Let

vf = VI'

i * 1,

Prove that U = s + (1 - s)w, where

2 P )
v*v*'

II'"
(J
~*'
I'

Hint: EV·= V*, where

1 0 o
V2 V 'l
---,
V1Vl
o
E=
,
vpvl
---, 0 1
vlv 1

5.8. (Sec. 5.2.2) Prove that w has the distribution of the square of a multiple
correlation between One vector and p - 1 vectors in (N - l}-space without
subtracting means; that is, it has density

[Hint: The transformation o~ Problem 5.7 is a projection of V 2' •••• V p' 'Y on the
(N - I)-space orthogonal to VI']

5.9. (Sec. 52.2) Verify that r = s/(1 - s) multiplied by (N -1)/1 has the noncen-
tral F-distribution with 1 and N - 1 degrees of freedom and noncentrality
parameter NT2.
 2
204 THF GENERALIZED T -STATISTIC

5.10. (Sec. 5.2.2) From Problems 5.5-5.9, verify Corollary 5.2.1.

5.11. (Sec. 53) Use the data in Section 3.2 to test the hypothesis that neither drug
has a soporific effect at significance level 0.01.

5.12. (Sec. 5.3) Using the data in Section 3.2, give a confidence region for f,1 with
confidence coefficient 0.95.

5.13. (Sec. 5.3) Prove the statement in Section 5.3.6 that the T 2·statistic is indepen·
dent of the choice of C.

5.14. (Sec. 5.5) Use the data of Problem 4.41 to test the hypothesis that the mean
head length and breadth of first SOns are equal to those of second sons at
significance level 0.01.

5.15. (Sec. 5.6.2) T2·test as a Bayes procedure [Kiefer and Schwartz (1965)]. Let
Xl"'" xN be independently distributed, each according to N(f,1, I). Let be no
defined by [f,1,I]=[O,(I+llll'}-'] with 11 having a density proportional to
II+llll'l-tN , and let TIl be defined by [f,1,I]= [(I+llll,}-ll1,(I+llll,}-I]
with 11 having a density proportional to

(a) Show that the lleasures are finite for N > P by showing 11'(1 + 1111'} - 111 .s; 1
and verifying that the integral of 11+ 1111'1- iN = (1 + 1111')- iN is finite.
(b) Show that the inequality (26) is equivalent to Ni'(,L.~~lXaX~}-li~k.
Hence the T 2-test is Bayes and thus admissible.

5.16. (Sec. 5.6.2) Let g(t} = f[tyl + (1- t}Y2], where f(y) is a real-valued functiun
of the vector y. Prove that if g(t} is convex, then f(y} is convex.

5.17. (Sec. 5.6.2) Show that z'B-Iz is a convex function of (z, B), where B is a
positive definite matrix. [Hint: Use Problem 5.16.]

5.18. (Sec. 5.6.2) Prove that if the set A is convex, then the closure of A is convex.

5.19. (Sec. 5.3) Let i and S be based on N observations from N(f,1, I}, and let X
be an additional ohservation from N(f,1, I}. Show that X - i is distributed
according to

N[O, (1 + 1IN)I].

Verify that [NI(N+ l)](x-i}'S-I(X-i} has the T 2-distribution with N-1

degrees of freedom. Show how this statistic can be used to give a prediction
region for X based on i and S (i.e., a region such that one has a given
confidence that the next observation will fall into it).
PROBLEMS 205

5.20. (Sec. 53} Let x~) be obsen:ations from N(Il-('l, :I), a = 1, ... , N,. i = 1,2. Find
the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hY'Jothesis Il-(I) = 1l-(2).

5.21. (Sec. S.4) Prove that Il-':I -Ill- is larger for Il-' = ( IJ-I' IJ-~) than for Il- = IJ-I by
verifying

Discuss- the power of the test IJ-, = 0 compared to the power of the test IJ-I = 0,
1J-2 = O.

5.22. (Sec. 53)

(a) Using the data of Section 5.3.4, test the hypothesis IJ-\I) =: 1J-\2).
(b) Test the hypothesis IJ-\I) = 1J-\2.), IJ-~I) = IJ-<i).

5.23. (Sec. 5.4) Let

Prove 1l-':I-lll-~ 1l-(1)1:I1I'Il-(I). Give a condition for strict inequality to hold,

[Hint: This is the vector analog of Problem 5.21.]

5.24. Let XC!), = (y(i\ Z(i)I), i"", 1,2, where y(l) has p components and Zld has q
components, be distributed according to N(1l-(1),:I}, where

(i) =
( (,)
I-Ly 1 :I=(:In i = 1,2,
I-L Il-~)' 'II)'

Find the likelihood ratio criterion (or eqllivalent T 2-criterion) for testing Il-~'\ =
Il-(;) given Il-~) = Il-~;) on the basis of a sample of N j on X(I\ i = 1,~, l Him:
Express the likelihood in terms of the marginal density of Yl') and the
conditio.lar density of Z(i) given y(i).]

5.25. Find the distribution of the criterion in the preceding problem under the null
hypothesis.

5.26. (Sec. 5.5) Suppose x~g) IS an observation from N(ll-l~\. :I~), C'C = 1. .. ,. N~..
g= 1, ... ,q.
206 TIlE GENERALIZED T 2-STATlST1C

(a) Show that the hypothesis p..(I) = ... = p..(q) is equivalent to £y~) = 0,
i = 1, ... , q - 1, where

a .... l, ... ,NI , i=1, ... ,q-1;

(aY\.·., a~)}, i = 1•... , q I, are linearly inde-

NI :S Ng • g = 2, ... , q; and
pelldent.
(b) Show how to construct a T 2-test of the hypothesis using (y(lll, ••• , y(q -·1) '}'
yielding an F-statistic with (q - l}p and N - (q - l}p degrees of freedom
[Anderson (I963b)].

5.27. {Sec. 5.2} Prove (25) is the density of V = x~""/( X; + xl}. [Hint: In the joint
density of U = Xa2 and W ... xC make the transformation u = uw(l - U)-I, W = w
and integrate out w.]
CHAPTER 6

Classification of Observations

6.1. THE PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION

The problem of classification arises when an investigator makes a number of

measurements on an individual and wishes to classify the individual into one
of several categories on the basis of these measurements. The investigator
cannot identify the individual with a category directly but must use these
meaSurements. In many cases it can be assumed that there are a finite num-
ber of categories Or populations from which the individual may have come and
each population is characterized by a probability distribution of the measure-
mentS. Thus an individual is considered as a random observation from this
population. The question is: Given an individual with certain measurements,
from which population did the person arise?
The problem of classification may be considered as a problem of "statisti-
cal decision functions." We have a number of hypotheses: Each hypothesis is
that the distribution of the observation is a given one. We must accept one of
these hypoth"!ses and reject the others. If only two populations are admitted,
we have an elementary problem of testing one hypothesis of a specified
distribution against another.
In some insumces, the categories are specified beforehand in the sense
that the probability distributions of the measurements are assumed com-
pletely known. In other cases, the form of each distribution may be known,
but the parameters of the distribution must be estimated from a sample from
that population.
Let us give an example of a problem of classification. Prospective students
applying for admission into college are given a battery of tests; the "ector of

An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

207
208 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

scores is a set of measurements x. The prospective student may be a member

of one population consisting of those students who will successfully complete
college training or, rather, have potentialities for successfully completing
training, or the student may be a member of the other population, those who
will not complete the college course successfully. The problem is to classify a
student applying for admission on the basis of his scores on the entrance
examination.
In this chapter we shall develop the theory of classification in general
terms and then apply it to cases involving the normal distribution. In Section
6.2 the problem of classification with two popUlations is defined in terms of
decision theory, and in Section 6.3 Bayes and admissible solutions are
obtained. In Section 6.4 the theory is applied to two known normal popUla-
tions, differing with respect to means, yielding the population linear dis-
criminant function. When the parameters are unknown, they are replaced by
estimates (Section 6.5). An alternative procedure is maximum likelihood. In
Section 6.6 the probabilities of misclassification by the two methods are evalu-
ated in terms of asymptotic expansions of the distributions. Then these devel-
opments are carried out for several populations. Finally, in Sectioll 6.10 linear
procedures for the two populations are studied when the covariance matrices
are diff("rent and the parameters are known.

6.2. STANDARDS OF GOOD CLASSIFICATION

6.2.1. Preliminary Considerations

In constructing a procedure of classification, it is desired to minimize the
probability of misclassification, or, more specifically, it is desired to minimize
on the average the bad effects of misclassification. Now let us make this
notion precise. For convenience we shall now consider the case ()f only two
categories. Later we shall treat the more general case. This section develops
the ideas of Section 3.4 in more detail for the problem of two decisions.
Suppose an individual is an observation from either population 7Tl or
popUlation 7T 2 . The classification of an observation depends on the vector of
measurements x = (x l' ... , x,) on that individual. We set up a rule that if an
I

individual is charal.1crized by certain sets of values .J!' Xl" .. , x p that pen;on

will be classified as from 7Tl' if other values, as from 7T 2 .
We can think of an observation as a point in a p-dimensional space. We
divide this space into two regions. If the observation falls in R l' we classify it
as coming from popUlation 7T l' and if it falls in R 2 we classify it as coming
from popUlation 7T 2'
In following a given classification procedure, the statistician can make two
kinds of errors in classification. If the individual is actually from 7T l' the
6.2 STANDARDS OF GOOD CLASSIFICATION 209

Table 6.1
Statistician's Decision
7T) 7T~

7Tl 0 C(211)
Population
7T1 C(112) 0

statistician can classify him or her as coming from population 7T:; if from 7T~,
the statistician can classify him or her as from 7TI' We need to know the
relative undesirability of these two kinds of misdassificatiol1. Let the cost of
tlte first type of misclassification be C(211) (> 0), and let the cost of mis-
classifying an individual from 7T2 as from 7TI be COI2) (> 0). These costs
may be measured in any kind of units. As we shall see later, it is only the
ratio of the two costs that is important. The statistician may not know these
costs in each case, but will often have at least a rough idea of them.
Table 6.1 indicates the costs of correct and incorrect classification. Clearly,
a good classification procedure is one that minimizes in some sense or other
the cost of misclassification.

6.2.2. Two Cases of Two Populations

We shall consider ways of defining "minimum cost" in two case~. In onc casc
we shall suppose that we have a priori pmbabiljtic~ of tht.: tvvo poplliation>;.
Let the probability that an observation comes from population 7Tt bc Cfl and
from population 7T2 be q~ (ql + q~ = 1). The probability properties of popu-
lation 7TI are specified by a distribution function. For convenience we shall
treat only the case where the distribution has a density, although the case of
discrete probabilities lends itself to almost the same treatment. Let the
density of population 7T I be P I( x) and that of 7T 2 be P ~(x). If we have a
region R I of classification as from 7T I' the probability of correctly classifying
an observation. that actually is drawn from population 7T I is

(l) P ( 111 , R) = f PI ( x) dx.

RI

where dx = dx I ... dx p' and the probability of misclassification of an observa·

tion from 7TI is

(2) P(211, R} = fR,PI( x} dx.

Similarly, the probability of correctly classifying. an obse rvation from 7T:. is

( 3) P'212,R}= f p~(x}dx,
R,
210 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

and the probability of misclassifying such an observation is

(4) P(112, R) = f pix) dx.

RJ

Since the probability of drawing an observation from 7TI is qI' the

probability of drawing an observation from 7TI and correctly classifying it is
ql POll, R); that is. this is the probability of the situation in the upper
left-hand corner of Table 6.1. Similarly, the probability of drawing an
observation from 7TI and misclassifying it is qIP(211, R). The probability
associated with the lower left-hand corner of Table 6.1 is q2P012, R), and
with the lower right-hand corner is q2P(212, R).
What is t.1C average or expected loss from costs of misclassification? It is
the sum of the products of costs of misclassifications with their respective
probabilities of occurrence:

(5) C(211) P(211, R)qI + C( 112) P( 112, R)q2'

It is this average loss that we wish to minimize. That is, we want to divide our
space into regions RI and R2 such that the expected loss is as small as
possible. A procedure that minimizes (5) for given qI and q2 is called a Bayes
procedure.
In the example of admission of students, the undesirability of misclassifica-
tion is, in one instance, the expense of teaching a student who will nOi
complete the course successfully and is, in the other instance, the undesirabil-
ity of excluding from college a potentially good student.
The other case we shall treat is that in which there are no known a priori
probabilities. In this case the expected loss if the observation is from 7T I IS

(6) C(211)P(211,R) =r(I,R);

the expected loss if the observation is from 7T 2 is

(7) C(112)PClI2, R) = r(2, R).

We do not know whether the observation is from 7TI or from 7T 2 , and we do

not know probabilities of these two instances.
A procedure R is at least as good as a procedure R* if r(1, R) ~ r(1, R*)
and r(2, R) S r(2, R*); R is better than R* if at least one of these inequalities
is a strict inequality. Usually there is no one procedure that is better than all
other procedures or is at least as good as all other procedures. A procedure
R is called admissible if there is no procedure better than R; we shall be
intere!;ted in the entire class of admissible procedures. It will be shown that
under certain conditions this class is the same as the class of Bayes proce-
6.3 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO POPULATIONS 211

dures. A class of procedures is complete if for every procedure outside the

class there is one in the class which is better; a class is called essentially
complete if for every procedure outside the class there is one in the class
which is at least as good. A minimal complete class (if it exists) is a complete
class such that no proper subset is a complete class; a similar definition holds
for a minimal essentially complete class. Under certain conditions we shall
show that the admissible class is minimal complete. To simplify the discussIon
we shaH consider procedures the same if they only differ on sets of probabil-
ity zero. In fact, throughout the next section we shall make statements which
are meant to hold except for sets of probability zero without saying so explicitly.
A principle that usually leads to a unique procedure is the miniMax
principle. A procedure is minimax if the maximum expected loss, r(it R), is a
minimum. From a conservative point of view, this may be consideled an
optimum procedure. For a general discussion of the concepts in this section
and the next see Wald (1950), Blackwell and Girshick (1954), Ferguson
(1967)t DeGroot (1970), and Berger (198Ob).

6.3. PROCEDURES OF CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO

POPULATIONS WITH KNOWN PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS

6.3.1. The Case When A Priori Probabilities Are Known

We now tum to the problem of choosing regions RI and R2 so as to mini-
mize (5) of Section 6.2. Since we have a priori probabilities, we can define joint
probabilities of the popUlation and the observed set of variables. The prob-
ability that an observation comes from 1T 1 and that each variate is less than
the corresponding component in y is

(1 )

We can also define the conditional probability that an observation came from
a certain popUlation given the values of the observed variates. For instance,
the conditional probability of coming from popUlation 1T l' given an observa-
tion x, is

(2)

Suppose for a moment that C(112) = C(21l) = 1. Then the expected loss is

(3)
212 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

This is also the probability of a misclassification; hence we wish to minimize

the probability of misclassification.
For a given obseIVed point x we minimize the probability of a misclassifi-
cation by assigning the population that has the higher conditional probability.
If

qIPI(X) ~ qzP2(X)
( 4)
qIPI(X) +qzP2(X) qIPI(X) +q2P2(X) '

we choose population 1T 1• Otherwise we choose popUlation 1T 2 , Since we

minimize the probability of misclassification at each point, we minimize it
over the whole space. Thus the rule is

R I : qIPI( x) ;?: q2 P2( x),

(5)
R 2: qIPI(X) <q2P2(X),

If qIP/x) = q2P2(X), the point could be classified as either from 1TI or 1T 2;

we have arbitrarily put it into R I • If q. PI(X) + q2P2(X) = 0 for a given x, that
point also may go into either region.
Now let us prove formally that (5) is the best procedure. For any proce-
dure R* = (Rt, Ri), the probability of misclass:fication is

(6)

On the right-hand side the second term is a given number; the first term is
minimized if R~ includes the points x such that q 1 P I( x) - q 2 pi x) < 0 and
excludes the points for which qIPix) - qzpix) > O. If

(7) i = 1,2.

then the Bayes procedure is unique except for sets of probability zero.
Now we notice that mathematically the problem was: given nonnegative
constants ql and q2 and nonnegative functions PI(X) and pix), choose
regions RI and R2 so as to minimize (3). The solution is (5), If we wish to
minimize (5) of Section 6.2, which can be written
6.3 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO POPUl.ATIONS 213

we choose Rl and R2 according to

R 1 : [C(211)qdpI(x) ~ [C(1I 2 )q2]P2(X),

(9)
R 2: [C(211)ql]PI(x) < [C(112)q2]p2(x),

since C(211)ql and C(112)q2 are nonnegative constants. Another way of

writing (9) is

R . Pl(X) > C(l12)q2

I· P2( x) - C(211)ql '
( 10)
R Pl( x) C( 112)q2
2: P2( x) < C(211)ql .

Theorem 6.3.1. If ql a,zd q2 are a priori probabilities of drawing an

observation from population ~Tl with density Pl(X) and 71"2 with density pix),
respectively, and if the cost of misclassifying an observation from 71" 1 as from 71":'.
is C(21l) and an observation/rom 71"2 as from 71"1 is C(112), then the regions of
classification Rl and R 2, defined by (10), minimize the expected cost. If

(11 ) i = 1,2,

then the procedure is unique except for sets of probability zero.

6.3.2. The Case When No Set of A Priori Probabilities Is Known

In many instances of classification the statistician cannot assign a prIori
probabilities to the two populations. In this case we shall look for the class of
admissible procedures, that is, the set of procedures that cannot be improved
upon.
First, let us prove that a Bayes procedure is admissible. Let R = (R 1, R:.)
be a Bayes procedure for a given q I' q2; is there a procedure R* = (Rj. R~ )
such that P(112, R*) ~ P(112, R) and P(211, R*) ~ P(211, R) with at least
one strict inequality? Since R is a Bayes procedure,

This inequality can be written

(13) ql[P(211,R) -P(211,R*)] ~q2[P(112,R*) -P(112,R)].

214 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

SUPPO$\C 0 < ql < I. Then if PCll2, R*) <POI2, R), the right~hand side of
(13) is 1e~s than zero and therefore P(211, R) < P(211, R*). Then P(211, R*)
< P(211. R) similarly implies P(112, R) < P(112, R*). Thus R* is not better
than R. and R is admissible. If q 1 = 0, then (13) implies 0 5 PO 12, R*) ~
P(112, R). For a Bayes procedure, RI includes only points for which pix) = O.
Therefore, P(l12, R) = 0 and if R* is to be better POI2, R*) = 0.IfPr{P2(x)
= OI7Tl} = 0, then P(211, R) = Pr{pzCx) > OI7TI} = 1. If POI2, R*) = 0, then
RT contains only points for which pZCx) = O. Then P(211, R*) = Pr{Ril7TI}
= Pr{p~(x) > OI7T l} = 1, and R~ is not better than R.

Theorem 6.3.2. If Pr{P2(x) = OI7T l} = 0 and Pr{PI(x) = 017T2} = 0, thom

every Bayes procedure is admissible.

Now let us prove the converse, namely, that every admissible procedure is
a Baye~ procedure. We assume t

(14) PI(X)
Pr { P2( x)
I)
= k 7T/ = 0, i=I,2, O:s;k:s;oo.

Then for any ql the Bayes procedure is unIque. Moreover, the cdf of
Pl(X)/P/x) for 7Tl and 7T2 is continuous.
Let R be an admissible procedure. Then there exists a k such that

(15) P(211, R) = Pr { P2(X) I )

PI( x) ~'", k 7TI

= P(211, R*),

where R* is the Bayes procedure corresponding to q2/ql = k [i.e., ql = I/O

+ k )]. Since R is admissible, P(112, R) ~ PO 12, R*). However, since by
Theorem 6.3.2 R* is ad miss ib Ie, POI2, R) ~ p 012, R*); that is, P(112, R) =
P(112, R*). Therefore, R is also a Bayes procedure; by the uniqueness of
Bayes procedures R is the same as R*.

Theorem 6.3.3. If (14) holds, then every admissible procedure is a Bayes

proccdlll c.

The proof of Theorem 6.3.3 shows that the ciass of Bayes procedures is
compkle. For if R is any procedure oUlside the class, we eonslruct a Bayes
proccdure R* so lhat P(211, R) = P(211, R*). Thcn, since R* is admissible,
P( 1.12. R) ~ P( 112, R*). Furthermore, the class of Bayes procedures is mini-
mal complete since it is identical with the class of admissible procedures.
6.4 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO NORMAL POPULATIONS 215

Theorem 6.3.4. If (14) holds, the class of Bayes procedures is minimal

complete.

Finally, let us consider the minimax procedure. Let P(ilj, q1) = P(ilj, R),
where R is the Bayes procedure corresponding to q1' P(ilj, ql) is a continu-
ous function of q \. P(211, ql) varies from 1 to 0 as q. goes from 0 to 1;
P(112, q.) varies from 0 to 1. Thus there is a value of q., say q;, such that
P(211, qi) = P(112, qj). This is the minimax solution, for if there were
',lDother proc~dure R* such that max{P(211, R*), P(112, R*)} $ P(211, q;) =
P(112, q;), that would contradict the fact that every Bayes solution is admissi-
ble.

6.4. CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF 1WO KNOWN MULTlVARlATE

NORMAL POPULATIONS

Now we shaH use the general procedure outlined above in the case of two
multivariate normal populations with equal covariance matrices, namely,
N(JL0l, I) al1d N(JL(2), I), where JL(I)' = (p.y>, .. ,' p.~» is the vector of means
of the ith population, i 1,2, and I is the matrix of variances and covari-
ances of each population. [The approach was first used by Wald (1944).]
Then the ith density is

( 1) Pi{X)

The ratio of densities is

(2)

exp{ -H(x- JL(I»)'I-·(x JLO»)

-(x- JL(2»)'I-'(x- JL(2»)]).

The region of classification into 7T I' R 1> is the set of x's for which (2) is
greater than or equal to k (for k suitably chosen). Since the logarithmic
function is monotonically increasing, the inequality can be written in terms of
the logarithm of (2) as
216 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

The left· hand side of (3) can be expanded as

(4) -t[x'I-1x-x'I Ip.(l) - p.(I)'I-1x- p.(I)'I-1p.(I)

-X'I-IX +x'I- 1p.(2) + p.(2)'I- l x p.(2)'I-Ip.(2)1.

By rearrangement of the terms we obtain

The first term is the well·known discriminant function. It is a function of the

components of the observation vector.
The follOWing theorem is now a direct consequence of Theorem 6.3.1.

Theorem 6.4.1. If 11"( has the density (1), i = 1,2, the best regions of
classification are given by

R 1; x'I-1(p.(l) - p.(2» - f(p.(l) + p.(2»'I-I(p.(I) - p.(2» ~ log k,

(6)
R 2 : x'I -1 (p.(l) p.(2» - Hp.(l) + p.(2»,I -1 (p.(l) - p.(2» < log k.

If a priori probabilities ql and q2 are known, then k is given by

(7)

In the particular case of the two populations being equally likely and the
costs being equal, k = 1 and log k = O. Then the region of classification into
11" 1 IS

If we de not have a priori probabilities, we may select log k = c, say, on the

basis of making the expected losses due to misclassification equal. Let X be a
ranGom obs~rvation. Then we wish to find the distribution of

on the ass.lmption that X is distributed according to N(p.(l\ I) and then on

the assumption that X is distributed according to N(p.(2\ I). When X is
distributed according to N(p.(I), I), U is normally distributed with mean

(1O) GtU = p.(l)'I-1(p.(1) p.(2» Hp.(l) + p.(2»),I- 1 (p.(I) - p.(l»

t(p.(l) - p.(2»,I 1 (p.(I) - p.(2»

6.4 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO NORMAL POPULATIONS 217

and variance

(11) Var I( U) = tB'1( fL(l) - fL(2»)'I - I (X - fL(l»)( X - fLO», I ·-1 (fLO) - fL(Z)

= (fL(I) - fL(2»)'I-I(fL(I) fL(2»).

The Mahalanobis squared distance between N(fL(l), I) and N(fL(2), I) is

(12)

say. Then U is distributed according to N(tli2, li2 ) if X is distributed

according to N(fL(l), I). If X is distributed according to N(fL(2>, I), then

(13) tB'2U == fL(2)'I-1 (fL(l) fL(2») - HfL(I) + fL(2)'I -I (fL(l) - fL(2)

= HfL(2) fL(l»)'I 1 (fL(l) - fL(2»)

= _11\2
2 '-l •

The variance is the same as when X is distributed according to N( fL{I). I)

because it dep~nds only on the second-order moments of X. Thus U is
distributed according to N( - tli2, li2 ).
The probability of misclassification if the observation is from 71"1 is

(14) P(211)

and the probability of misc1assification if the observation is from 71"1 is

(IS) P(112)

Figure 6.1 indicates the two probabilities as the shaded portions in the tails

Figure 6.1
218 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

For the minimax solution we choose c so that

Theorem 6.4.2. If the 7f, have densities (I), i = 1,2, the. minimax regions of
classification are given by (6) where c = log k is chosen by the condition (16) with
CUlj) the two costs of nzisc/assificatioll.

It should be noted that if the costs of misclassification are equal, c = 0 and

the probability of misclassification is

x 1 _l\.~ d
y.
(17)
J.l/2 -J27f
-e',

In case the costs of misclassification are unequal, c could be determined to

sufficient accuracy by a trial-and-error method with the normal tables.
Both terms in (5) involve the vector

( 18)

This is obtained as the solution of

( 19)

by an efficient computing method. The discriminant function x'o is the linear

functil)n that maximizes

[tC\(X'd) - C2 (X'd)r
(20)
Var(X'd)

for al1 choices of d. The numerator of (20) is

the denominator is

(22) d'C(X- CX)(X- CX)'d=d'I,d.

We wish to maximize (21) with respect to d, holding (22) constant. If A is a

Lagrange multiplicr, we ask for the maximum of
6.5 CLASSIFICATION WHEN THE PARAMETERS ARE ESTIMATED 219

The derivatives of (23) with respect to the components of d are set equal to
zero to obtain

(24)

Since (...,(1) - ...,(2)), d is a scalar, say 11, we can write (24) as

(25)

Thus the solution is proportional to B.

We may finally note that if we have a sample of N from either 71"1 or 71"2'
we use the mean of the sample and classify it as from N[...,(l), ClIN)I] or
N[...,(2), ClIN)I]'

6.5. CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF 1WO MULTIVARIATE NORMAL

POPULATIONS WHEN THE PARAMETERS ARE ESTIMATED

6.5.1. The Criterion of Cia.' sification

Thus far we have assumed that the two populations are known exactly, In
mOst applications of this theory the populations are not known, but must be
inferred from samples, one from each population. We shall now tredt the
case in which we have a sample from each of two normal popUlations and we
wish to use that information in classifying another observation ~s coming
from one of the two populatiol1s.
Suppose that we have a sample xPl, ... , x~~ from N(...,(l), I) and a sample
X~2), ... , Xh~; from N(...,(2), I). In one terminology these are "training samples."
On the basis of this information we wish to classify the observation x as
coming from 71"1 to 71"2. Clearly, our best estimate of ...,(1) is X(I) = L~IX~l) INl ,
of ...,(2) is i(2) = L~zX~2) IN2, and of I is S defined by

N\
( 1) (N1 + N2 - 2)S = L (X~1) - x(l))( X~l) - X(I))'
a=1

Nz
+ L (x~) - X(2))( X~2) - X(2»), .
a=l

We substitute these estimates for the parameters in (5) of Section 6.4 to

obtain
220 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

The first term of (2) is the discriminant function based on two samples
[suggested by Fisher (1936)]. It is the linear function that has greatest
variance between samples relative to the variance within samples (Problem
6.12). We propose that (2) be used as the criterion of classification in the
same way that (5) of Section 6.4 is used.
Vlhen the populations are known, we can argue that the classification
criterion is the best in the sense that its use minimizes the expected loss in
the case of known a priori probabilities and generates the class of admissible
procedures when a priori probabilities are not known. We cannot justify the
use of (2) in the same way. However, it seems intuitively reasonable that (2)
should give good result.s. Another criterion is indicated in Section 6.5.5.
Suppose we have a sample x it ••. , X N from either 7r t or 7r 2' and we wish
to classify the sample as a whole. Then we define S by

N)
(3) (Nt +N2 +N - 3)S = E (x~t) -.i(1»)(x~t) _.in)),
a-I

N2 N
+ E (x~) -.i(2))(x~) -.i(2»)' -- E (xa-x)(xa-x)"
a= I a-I

where

( 4)

Then the criterion is

(5)

The larger N is, the smaller are the probabilities of misclassification.

6.5.2. On the Distribution of the Criterion

Let

(6) W =X'S-l (X(I) - X(2» - HX(t) + X(2» 'S-I (X(t) - X(2»)

= [X- ~(X(l) +X(2»]'S-1(X(1)-X(2)

for random X, X(1l, X(2), and S.

6.5 CLASSIFICATION WHEN THE PARAMETERs ARE ESTIMATED 221

The distribution of W is extremely complicated. It depends on the sample

sizes and the unknown 6.z. Let

(7)

(8)

where c 1 = ~(Nl +N;)/(N1 +Nz + 1) and c2 = -JNJNz/(N J +N').). Then

Y1 and Y2 are independently normally distributed with covariance matrix I.
The expected value of Y2 is c 2{p.(l) p.(2», and the expected value of YJ is
cI[N2 /{N J + N 2 )Kp.(l) - p.(2» if X is from 'lTl and -cJ[N J/(N 1 + N 2 )Kp.(J) -
p.(2» if X is from 'lT2' Let Y = (Yl Y2 ) and

(9)

Then

(10) W=

The density of M has been given by Sitgreaves (1952). Anderson (1951a) and
Wald (1944) have also studied the distribution of W.
If N J = N 2 , the distribut'lon of W for X from 'IT I is the same as that of
- W for X from 'IT 2' Thus, If W ~ 0 is the region of classification as 'IT" then
the probability of misc1assifying X when it is from 'lT l is equal to the
probability of misclassifying it when it is from 'lT2'

6.5.3. The Asymptotic Distribution of the Criterion

In the case of large samples from N{p.(l) , l:.) and N(p.(2l, I), we can apply
limiting distribution theory. Since g(l) is the mean of a sample of N,
independent obselVations from N{p.(l), I), we know that

(11) plim X(l) = p.'ll.

NI-OO

The explicit definition of (11) is as follows: Given arbitrary positive !5 and e.

we can find N large enough so that for NI ~ N

(12) Pr{IXfD - p.~1)1 < 0, i= 1, ... ,p} > 1- B.

222 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

(See Problem 3.23.) This can be proved by using the Tchebycheff inequality.
Similarly_

(13) plim X(2) = j.L(2) ,

N ..... cc

and

(14) plim S= I

as NI -+ ::x::, N z -+ 00 or as both N j , N z -+ 00. From (14) we obtain

(15) plim S-I = I-I,

since the probability limits of sums, differences, products, and quotients of

random variacles are the sums, differences, products, and quotients of their
probability limits as long as the probability limit of each denominator is
different from zero [Cramer (1946), p. 254]. Furthermore,

(16) plirn S-I(X(l) -X(~)) = I - I (j.L(I) _ j.L(2»,

N 1 ·N2 .... ':YJ

(17)
plim (X(ll +X(Z»),S-I(X(I) _X(2l) = (j.L(l) + j.L(2»,I-I(j.L(I) _ j.L(2».
N 1 ·N 1 --o:X:

It follows then that the limiting distribution of W is the distribution of U.

For sufficiently large samples from 7TI and TT Z we can use the criterion as if
we knew the population exactly and make only a small error. [The result was
first given by Wald (1944).]

Theorem 6.5.1. Let W be given by (6) with X(l) the mean of a sample of NI
from N(j.L(l), I), X(2) the mean of a sample of N z from N(j.L(Z), I), and 5 the
estimate of I based on the pooled sample. The limiting distribution of W as
Nl -+ co and N~ -+ 00 is N(iti, ti) if X is distributed according to N(j.L(l), I)
and is N( - i~2, ~2) if X is distributed according to N(j.L(2l, I).

6.5.4. Another Derivation of the Criterion

A convenient mnemonic derivation of the criterion is the use of regression of
a dummy variate [given by Fisher (1936)]. Let

(18) (ll_ N2 1 N (2) _ -N1 1 N

Yo; - N +N' ~= , ... , l' Yo; - N +N' a= , ... , 2'
1 2 1 2
6.5 CLASSIFICATION WHEN THE PARAMETERS ARE ESTIMATED 223

Then formally find the regression on the variates x~) by choosing b to

minImize

2 N,
(19) E E (y~I)-bl(X~)~i)]2,
i= I 0:= I

where

(20)

The normal equations are

2N{ 2N;
(21) ~}2 (x~)-x)(x~)~x)'b= ~ ~ y~i)(x~)~x)
j=lo:=l j=la=1

The matrix mUltiplying b can be written as

'2 N,
(22) L E (x~) ~ x)(x~) ~i)'
i=lo:=1

2 N,
= ~ E (x~) ~ i(I»)( x~) - X(I))'
i '" I 0: -= I

2 N,
= ~ E (x~)~x(i))(X~)_i(I))'
i-I 0:-=1

Thus (21) can be written as

(23)
224 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

where

2 N,
(24) A = L L (X~) - i(i))( X~) - i(i»)'.
i=1 a=1

Since (i(l) - i(2»)'b is a scalar, we see that the solution b of (23) is propor-
tional to S~I(i(l) - i(2»).

6.5.5. The Likelihood Ratio Criterion

Another criterion which can be used in classification is the likelihood ratio
criterion. Consider testing the composite null hypothesis that x, XII), ••• , x~~
are drawn from N(fJ.(l), I) and xFl, ... , x~; are drawn from N(fJ.{2), I)
against the composite alternative hypothesis that X\Il, ... , x~~ are drrwn from
N(fJ.(I\ I) and x, xFl, ... , x~! are drawn from N(fJ.(2), I), with fJ.(l), fJ.{2}, and
I unspecified. Under the first hypothesis the maximum likelihood estimators
of fJ.o>, fJ.(2), and I are

A(1)
(25) fJ.l

r.(2)
.... 1
= i(2) ,

N2
+ L (X~2) fi\2»)( x~)
u=1

Since

NI
(26) L (x~) fa.V»)(x~l)- fa.\l)) , + (x- fa.\l))(x fi(I!))'
ao:l

NI
L (x~l) - i(O)( x~l) - i(l))' + N 1( i(l) fa.\I») (i(l) fa.\l))'
a=1

+ (x - fiV»( ~ - fa.\l»)'
NI h
L (X~I) - i(l))( x~l) - i(O)' + Nt ~ 1(x - i(l»)( x - i(l»)',
a~1
6.5 CLASSIFICATION WHEN THE PARAMETERs ARE ESTIMATED 225

we can write i [ as

(27) ~~ I -- N[ + 1N2 + 1 [A + NI N
+ 1 (x - x-(1))( x - x -(I)),] ,
where A is given by (24). Under the assumptions of the alternative hypothesis
we find (by considerations of symmetry) that the maximum likelihood estima-
tors of the parameters are

A(2) _
u -(2)
1V2X
+x
(28) lL2 - N2 + 1 '

~~2-- 1 +1
N 1 +N N2 ( x-x-(2))( x-x-r:l) '1 .
[A + N~+l
2

Tl-Ie likelihood ratio criterion is, therefore, the (N 1 + N2 + l)/2th power of

(29)

This ratio can also be written (Corollary A.3.I)

(30) N
1+ I (x-x(I))'A- 1 (x-i(I))
N[ +1

n+ N2 (X_i(2))'S-\(x-i(~))
N2 + 1

where n = N[ + N2 - 2. The region of classification into 1T I consists of those

points for which the ratio (30) is greater than or equal to a given number K n .
It can be written

N~ ( _ ~) _\ _(;)
(31) R . Il
l'
+ N+l- X - Xl- )' S (x - x - )
2
226 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATION~

If Kn = 1 + 2c/n and Nl and N2 are large, the region (31) is approximately

W(x) ~ c.
If we take Kn = 1, the rule is to classify as 1T[ if (30) is greater than 1 and
as 1T ~ if (30) is less than 1. This is the maximum likelihood rule. Let

(32) z = ~ [N~~ 1 (x -i(2))'S-[(x -i(2))

~ N~~ 1 (x ~i(l))'S-I(X ~i(l))].
Then the maximum likelihood rule is to classify as 1T[ if Z> 0 and 1T2 if
Z < O. Roughly speaking, assign x to 1T[ or 1T2 according to whether the
distance to i(l) is less or greater than the distance to i(2). The difference
between Wand Z is

( 33) W~Z= 1. [ 1 (x ~ i(2») ,S - I ( X ~ i(2))

2 N2 + 1

~ Nl~ 1 (X~i(l))'S-I(X-i(l))],
which has the probability limit 0 as N 1, N2 -+ 00. The probabilities of misclas-
sification with Ware equivalent asymptotically to those with Z for large
samples.
Note that for Nl = N 2 - Z = [N1/(N1+ l)]W. Then the symmetric test
based on the cutoff c = 0 is the same for Z and W.

6.5.6. Invariance
The classification problem is invariant with respect to transformations

x(I)*(l
= BX(I) + c
(l , ex = 1, ... , NI ,

(34) ex = 1, ... , N 2 ,

x* = Bx + c,
where B is nonsingular and c is a vector. This transformation induces the
following transformation on the sufficient statistics:

i(l)* = Bi(l) + c, i(2)* = Bi(2) + c,

(35)
x* =Bx +c, S* =BSB',
with the same transformations on the parameters, tJ..(ll, tJ..(21, and ::£. (Note
that (,.~x = tJ..([) or tJ..(2).) Any invariant of the parameters is a function of
6.6 PROBABILITIES OF MISCLASSIFICATION 227

112 = (j.L(I) _",(2)),I,-1(j.L0) - j.L(2). There exists a matrix B and a vector c

such that

(36) j.L(l)* = Bj.L(I) + c = 0, j.L(2)* = Bj.L(2) + c = (11,0, ... ,0)',

I,*=BI,B'=I.
Therefore, ~2 is the minimal invariant of the parameters. The elements of M
defined by (9) are invariant and are the minimal invariants of the sufficient
statistics. Thus invariant procedures depend on M, and the distribution of M
depends only on 112. The statistics Wand Z are invariant.

6.6. PROBABILmES OF MISCLASSIFICATION

6.6.1. Asymptotic Expansions of the Probabilities of Misclassification

Using W
We may want to know the probabilities of misclassification before we draw
the two samples for determining the classification rule, and we may want to
know the (conditional) probabili.ies of misclassification after drawing the
samples. As obsetved earlier, the exact distributions of Wand Z are very
difficult to calculate. Therefore, we treat asymptotic expansions of their
probabilities as N[ and N2 increase. The background is that the limiting
distribution of Wand Z is Nq112, (12) if x is from 7T[ and is N( - ~112, (12) if
x is from 7T 2 •
Okamoto (1963) obtained the asymptotic expansion of the distribution of
W to terms of order n -2, and Siotani and Wang (1975,1977) to terms of
order n - 3. [Bowker and Sitgreaves (1961) treated the case of Nt = N 2 .] Let
4'(.) and cb(') be the cdf and density of N(O, 1), respectively.

Theorem 6.6.1. As N[ -+ 00, N2 -+ 00, and N[/N2 -+ a positive limit (n =

Nt +N2 - 2),

1
+ 2 [u
3
+ 211u 2 + (p - 3 + (12)u + (p - 2) 11 ]
2N211
1
+ 4 n [4u 3 + 411u 2 + (6p - 6 + (1 2)u + 2(p - 1)11]} + O(n- 2 ),

and Pr{ -(W + 1112 )/11 ~ UI7T 2 ) is (1) with N[ and N2 interchanged.
228 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

The rule using W is to assign the observation x to 1T1 if W(x) > c and to
1T2 if W(x):::; c. The probabilities of misclassification are given by Theorem

6.6.1 with u = (c - !L~?)/~ and u = -(c + ~~2)/~, respectively. For c = 0,

u = - ~~. If N] = N 2 , this defines an exact minimax rrocedure [Das Gupta
(1965)].

Corollary 6.6.1

(2) pr{w ~ OI1T 1 , lim NNI =

n->OO 2
I)
=$(-~~)+ ~cP(!~)[P~1 + ~~] +o(n- l )

= pr{W2. OI1T 2 , lim

11 .... 00
ZI I}.
2
=

Note tha·l. the correction term is positive, as far as this correction goes;
that is, the probability of misclassification is greater than the value of the
normal approximation. The correction term (to order n -I) increases with p
for given ~ and decreases with ~ for given p.
Since ~ is usually unknown, it is relevant to Studentize W. The sample
Mahalanobis squared distance

(3)

is an estimator of the population Mahalanobis squared distance ~2. The

expectation of D2 is

( 4)

See Problem 6.14. If NI and N2 are large, this is approximately ~2.

Anderson (1973b) showed the following:

Theorem 6.6.2. If NI/N2 -+ a positive limit as n -+ 00,

6.6 PROBABILITIES OF MISCLASSIFICATION 229

{I p-l) l[W' ( 3)]} + O( n--).

<P( u) - <p( u) N2 (U2 - -Ll- + Ii ""4 + p - '4 , II

Usually, one is interested in u :s; 0 (small probabilities of error). Then the

correction term is positive; that is, the normal approximation underestimates
the probability of misclassification.
One may want to choose the cutoff point c so that one probability of
misclassification is controlled. Let a be the desired Pr{W < cl '11). Anderson
a973b, 1973c) derived the following theorem;

Theorem 6.6.3. Let U o be such that c}:>(uo) = a, and ler

(8)

Then c Du + !D2 will attain the desired probability a to within O(n-':;).

We now turn to evaluating the probabilities of misdassification after the
two samples have been drawn. Conditional on i(I), j(:\ and S. Lhe random
variable W is normally distributed with conditional mean

(9) 8(W1l7p j{l). j(2), S) = [...,(1) - ~ (j(l) r

+j(:!~) S-I (j(1) j(~))

= p.(!)( jUl. j(2), S)

when x is from 17" i = 1,2, and conditional variance

Note that these means and variance are functions of the samples with
probability limits

plim J15 i )(j(1),j(2),S) ( l)'-l~~~.

N 1• N 2 -·Cf.)
( 11)
plim (T2(inl,i(2),S) = tJ.?',
N 1• N2- 00
230 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

For large: Nt and N~ the conditional probabilities of misclassification are

close to the limiting normal probabilities (with high probability relative to
illl. i{~). and S).

When c is the cutoff point, probabilities of misclassification conditional on

i(1). i C\ and S are

( 12) P(211 C i(l) i(:!) S) = q:, C - J.l

(1)( -(I)
x
-(2)
,x ,
S) 1
" " [ u ( x-(I) ,x- (2) , S) ,

( 13) P(ll?
. -, c, x-(I) ,X-(2) , S)=l-'+'
'¥
C-J.lX
(2)(-(1) -(2)
,x ,
_(I) -(2)
S) 1
•
[
u(x ,x .S)
In (12) y,.rite c as DU I + tDz. Then the argument of ¢(.) in (12) is
lit Diu + (i(l) - i(:!l)' S -1 (i( I) ..,(1) I u; the first term converges in probabil-

ity to u l ' the second term tends to 0 as Nl -;. 00, N2 -;. 00, and (12) to 4>(u l ).
In (13) write t' as Duz !Dz. Then the argument of q:,(.) in (13) is
It;Dlu+ (i{l) _XI~))'S-l(i(2) -..,(2)/u. The first term converges in proba~
bility to 1I2 and thc second term to 0; (13) converges to 1 ¢(u 2 ).
For given i(ll, i(21, and S the (conditional) probabilities of misclassifica-
tion (12) and (13) are functions of the parameters ..,(1), ..,(21, I and can be
estimated. Consider them when c = O. Then (12) and (13) converge in
probability to ¢( - ~ .1); that suggests q:,( - tD) as an estimator of (12) and
(3). A better estimator is q:,( 115), where D2 (n p _l)D2 In, which
is closer to being an unbiased estimator of tJ.2• [See (4).] Mclachlan
(1973. 1974a, 1974b. 1974c) gave an estimator of (12) whose bias is of order
n-~: it is

(14) ¢(-~D)+cPOD){PN~g + 3~n[-D3+4(4p-1)Jl}.

[McLachlan gave U4) to terms of order n -I,] Mclachlan explored the
properties of these and other estimators. as did Lachenbruch and Mickey
(I 968).
Now consider (12) with c = DU I + ~D:!~ U 1 might be chosen to control
P(211) conditional on X(ll, i(21, S, This conditional probability as a function of
illl, i l :'\.') is a random variable whose distribution may be approximated.
McLachlan showed the following:

Theorem 6.6.4. As N\ -;. 00, N!. -;. co, and NIIN2 -;. a pOSitive limit,

' cP(211.DlIt + !D2.illl,iI2I,S) -{)J(lt )

l }
(15) Pr yn ,:;; X
\ cP(u z ) [1 u i + fllN l ] 3

=¢[x- (p-I)nINl-(p,-1+n/~l)Ul Ui/4]+o(n-2).

m[tlli +nINI ]:
6.6 PROBABlUTIES OF MISCLASSIFlCATION 231

McLachlan (1977) gave a method of selecting u[ so that the probability of

one misclassification is less than a preassigned fj with a preassigned confi-
dence level 1 - e.

6.6.2. Asymptotic Expansions of the Probabilities of Misclassification

Using Z
We now tum our attention to Z defined by (32) of Section 6.5. The results
are parallel to those for W. Memon and Okamoto (1971) expanded the
distribution of Z to terms of order n -2, and Siotani and Wang (1975), (1977)
to terms of order n- 3 •

Theorem 6.6.5. As N[ -+ 00, N2 -+ 00, and N[ I N2 approaches a positive

limit,

(16) pr{ Z 6.~6.2 ~UI1Tl}

= ¢(u) - cP(U){ 1 2 [u 3+ 6.u 2 + (p - 3)u - 6.]

2Nl 6.
1
+ 2N26.2 [u 3 + 6.u 2 + (p - 3 - 6.2)u - 6.3 - 6.]

+ 4~ [4u 3 + 46.u 2 + (6p - 6 + 6.2)u + 2(p - 1)6.]} + O(n- 2 ),

and Pd -(Z + ~6.2)/6. ~ UI1T 2} is (16) with N] and N2 interchanged.

When c = 0, then u = - t 6.. If N] = N 2 , the rule with Z is identical to the

rule with W, and the probability of misclassification is given by (2).
Fujikoshi and Kanazawa (1976) proved

Theorem 6.6.6

(17) pr{ Z -JD 2

~ UI 1T l}
= ¢(u) - cP(U){ 2~16. [u 2 + 6.u - (p -1)]

- 2~2 6. [u 2 + 26.u + P - 1 + 6.2]

+ 4~ [u 3 + (4 P - 3) u] } + 0 ( n- 2 ) ,
232 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

2
(18) pr{ - Z +JD ~ U)7T 2}

= <I>(u) - cP(U){ - 2~ltl [u 2 + 2tlu +p -1 + tl2]

+ 2~2tl [u 2 + tlu - (p -1)] + 4~ [u 3 + (4p - 3)u1} + O(n-2)

Kanazawa (1979) showed the following:

Theorem 6.6.7. Let U o be such that <I>(u o) = a, and let

(19) u = Uo+ 2~1D [u5 + Duo - ( P - 1)]

- 2~ D [u5 +Du o + (p -1) _D2]

2

1
+ 4 n [U6 + ( 4P - 5) u o] .
Then as Nl ~ 00, N2 ~ 00, and Nli N2 ~ a positive limit,

(20)

Now consider the probabilities of misclassification after the samples have

been drawn. The conditional distribution of Z is not normal: Z is quadratic
in x unless N) = N 2 . We do not have expressions equivalent to (12) and (13).
Siotani (1980) showed the following:

Theorem 6.6.8. As N) ~ 00, N2 ~ 00, and N)IN2 ~ a positive limit,

It is also possible to obtain a similar expression for p(211, DU 1 +

~D2, i(l\ i(2\ S) for Z and a confidence intelVal. See Siotani (1980).
6.7 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL POPULATIONS 233

6.7. CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL POPULATIONS

Let us now consider the problem of classifying an observation into one of

several populations. We !'hall extend the con~ideration of the previous
sections to the cases of more than two populations. Let 1Tl"'" 1Tm be m
populations with density functions Pl(X)"", p",(x), respectively. We wish to
divide the space of observations into m mutually exclusive and exhaustive
regions R 11 ••• I Rm' If an obsclvation falls into R" We shall say that it comes
from 1T{. Let the cost of misclas5ifying an observation from 1T, as coming from
1Tj be C(jl i), The probability of this misclassification is

(1) PUli, R) = f p,(x) dx.

RJ

Suppose we have a priori probabilities of the populations, q1> ...• q",. Then
the expected loss is

(2) i~ q{~ C( jli) P( jli, R)}.

J of,

We should like to choose R I , ... , R", to make this a minimum.

Since we have a priori probabilities for the populations. we can define the
conditional probability of an observation corning from a popUlation given
thl. values of the componenth of the vector x. The conditional probability of
the: observation coming from 1T, is

q,p,(x)
(3)

If we classify the observation as from 1TJ' the expected loss is

( 4)

We minimize the expected loss at this JX)int if We choose j so as to minimize

(4); that is, we consider

(5) L, q,p,(x)CUli)
i= 1
I+j
234 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

for all j and select that j that gives the minimum. (If two different indices
give the minimum, it is irrelevant which index is selected.) This procedure
assigns the point x to one ofthe Rr Following this procedure for each x, we
define our regions RI"'" Rm' The classification procedure, then, is to
classify an observation as coming from 1Tj if it falls in Rj"

Theorem 6.7.1. If q, is the a priori probability Of drawing an obseroation

from population 1Tr with density P,(X), i = 1, ... , m, and if the cost ofmisclassify-
ing all observation from 1Tj as from 1Tj is C(jl i), then the regions of classifica-
tion, R!, ... , Rm' that minimize the expected cost are defined by assigning x to
R~ if

m m
(6) . I: qrPI(x)C(kli) < L q,PI(x)CUli), j=l, ... ,m, j.;.k.

[If (6) holds for all j (j .;. k) except for h indices and the inequality is replaced by
equality for those indices, then this point can be assigned to any of the h + I1T's.]
If the probability of equality between the right-hand and left-hand sides of (6) is
zerO for each k and j under 1T, (I::ach i), then the minimizing procedure is unique
except for sets of probability zero.

Proof. We now verify this result. Let

11/

(7) hJ(x) = L q,p;(x)CUli).

I-I
,:pi

Then the expected loss of a procedure R is

m
(8) L
J-l
f hJ(x) dx= jh(xIR)dx,
R)

where lz(x\R) = Iz}x) for x in RJ' For the Bayes procedure R* described in
the theorem, h(xl R) is h(xIR*) = mini hl(x). Thu~; the difference between
the expected loss for any procedure R and for R* is

~o.

Equality can hold only if h,(x) = min, h/x) for x In RJ except for sets of
probability zero. •
6.7 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL POPULATIONS 235

Let us see how this method applies when CCjli) = 1 for all i and j, i ¢ j.
Then in Rk
m m
(10) E qiPI(X) < E qiPi(X), j ¢k.
r= 1
I .. j

Subtracting 'Li=J,i*k.jqlPr(X) from both sides of (0), we obtain

(11)

In this case the point x is in Rk if k is the index for which qiPj(X) is a

maximum; that is, 7Tk is the most probable population.
Now suppose that we do not have a priori probabilities. Then we cannot
define an unconditional expected loss for a classificaLion procedure. How-
ever, we can define an expected loss on the condition that the observation
comes from a given population. The conditional expected loss if the observa-
tion is from 7T j [S
m
( 12) E C(jli)P(jli,R) =r(i, R).
j=J
j .. ,

A procedure R is at least as good as R* if rei, R) ::; rCi, R*), i = 1, ... , m; R

is better if at least one inequality is strict. R is admissible if there is no
procedure R* that is better. A class of procedures is complete if for every
procedure R outside the class there is a procedure R* in the class that is
better.
Now let us show that a Bayes procedure is admissible. Let R be a Bayes
procedure; let R* be another procedure. Since R is Bayes,
m m
(13) Eq,r(i,R)::; Eqjr(i,R*).
i= J ,= J
Suppose q J > 0, q2 > 0, r(2, R* ) < r(2, R), and rei, R* ) ::; rei, R), i = 3, ... , m.
Then
m
(14) q[[r(1,R) -r(1,R*)]::; Lqi[r(i,R*)-r(i,R)] <0,
i= 2

and rO, R) < rO, R*). Thus R* is not better than R.

Theorem 6.7.2. If qj > 0, i = 1, ... , m, then a Bayes procedure is admissi-

ble.
236 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

'*
We shall now assume that CCiIj) = 1, i j, and Pdpi(X) = OI7Tj } = O. The
latter condition implies that all Pj(x) are positive on the same set (except fer
a set of measure 0). Suppose qj = 0 for i = 1, ... , t, and ql > 0 for i = t +
1, ... , m. Then for the Bayes solution RI , i = 1, ... , t, is empty (except for
a set of probability 0), as seen from (11) [that is, Pm(x) = 0 for x in R J
It follows that rG, R) = L,*jP(jli, R) = 1- PGli, R) = 1 for i = 1, . .. ,t.
Then (R r +], ..• , Rm) is a Bayes solution for the problem involving
Pr+](x), ... ,Pm(x) and ql+], ... ,qm' It follows from Theorem 6.7.2 that no
procedure R* for which PUI i, R*) = 0, i = 1, ... , t, can be better than the
Bayes procedure. Now consider a procedure R* such that Rf includes a set
of positive probability so that POll, R*) > O. For R* to be better than R,

(15) P(ili, R) = f PI(X) dx

R,

~P(ili,R*)=f PI(x)dx, i=2, ... ,m.

R*,

In such a case a procedure R** where Rj* is empty, i = 1, ... , t, Rj* = Rj,
i = t + 1, ... , m - 1, and R':n* = R':n URi U ... URi would give risks such
that

P(ili, R**) = 0, i=1, ... ,t,

(16) P(il i, R**) = P{il i, R*) ~ P( iii, R), - i=t + 1, ... ,m -1,
P(mlm, R**) > P(mlm, R*);?: P(mlm, R).

Then Ri:l, ... ,R~*) would be better than (R1+1, ... ,R m) for the (m-t)-
decision problem, which contradicts the preceding discussion.

Theorem 6.7.3. IfCCiIj) = 1, i '* j, and Pr{p/x) = 017T) = 0, then a Bayes

procedure is admissible.

The conVerse is true without conditions (except that the parameter space
is finite).

Theorem 6.7.4. Every admissible procedure is a Bayes procedure.

We shall not prove this theorem. It is Theorem 1 of Section 2.10 of

Ferguson (1967), for example. The class of Bayel; procedures is minimal
complete if each Bayes procedure is unique (for the specified probabilities).
The minimax procedure is the Bayes procedure for which the risks are
equal.
6.8 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL NORMAL POPULATIONS 237

There are available general treatments of statistical decision procedures

by Wald (1950), Blackwell and Girshick (1954), Ferguson (1967), De Groot
(1970), Berger (1980b), and others.

6.S. CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL MULTIVARIATE

NORMAL POPULATIONS

We shall noW apply the theory of Section 6.7 to the case in which each
population has a normal distribution. [See von Mises (1945).] We assume that
the means are different and the covariance matrices are alike. Let N(JJ.<'\ I)
be the distribut ion of 1T1 • The density is given by (1) of Section 6.4. At the
outset the parameters are ·assumed known. For general costs with known
a priori probabilities we can form the m functions (5) of Section 6.7 and
define the region R j as consisting of points x such that the jth function is
minimum.
In the remainder of our discussion We shall assume that the costs of
misclassification are equal. Then we use the functions

If a priori probabilities are known, the region R, is defined by those .\"

~atisfying

(2) k=I, ... ,m. k*j.

Theorem 6.S.1. If ql is the a priori probability of drawing an observation

from 1Tf = N(JL(i), I), i = 1, .. " m, and if the costs ofmisclassification are equal,
then the regions 'of classification, R 1, •.. , R m' that minimize the expected cost are
defined by (2), where ujk(x) is given by 0).

It should be noted that each Ujk(X) is the classification function related to

the jth and kth populations, and ujk(x) = -uklx). Since these are linear
functions, the region R i is bounded by hyperplanes. If the means span an
(m - I)-dimensional hyperplane (for example, if the vectors JL(i) are linearly
independent and p ~ m - 1), then R f is bounded by m - 1 hyperplanes.
In the case of no set of a priori probabilities known. the region R j is
defined by inequalities

(3) k=I, ... ,m, k*j.

238 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

The con:.tants c/.. can be taken nonnegative. These sets of regions form the
dass of admissible procedures. For the minimax procedure these constants
are determined so all p(iI i, R) are equal.
We now show how to evaluate the probabilities of COrrect classification. If
X is a random observation, We consider the random variables

(4)

Here V)r = - Vrr Thus We use m(m - 1)/2 classification functions if the
means span an (m - 1)-dimensional hyperplane. If X is from 1TJ' then ~i is
distributed according to N(}: t1~1> t1~), where

(5)

The covariance of VJr and V J/.. is

( 6)

To determine the constants c J we consider the integrals

f··· f
:x: :x:
(7) P(jlj. R) = f; dUJI .. , dUJ.J-1 dUj,j+1 ." dUjm'
c)-c m c)-c.

where fJ is the density of VJI' i = 1,2, " ., m, i *' j.

Theorem 6.8.2. If 1Tr is N(V.5'), I) and the costs of misclassification are
equal. then the regions of classification, R l' ... , R m' that minimize the maximum
conditional expetted loss are defined by (3), where Uik(X) is given by (1). The
constants cJ are detennined so that the integrals (7) are equal.

As an example consider the case of m = 3. There is no loss of generality in

taking p = 2, for the density for higher p can be projected on the two-dimen-
sional plane determined by the means of the t'uee populations if they are not
collinear (i.e., we can transform the vector x into U 12 ' Ul3' and p - 2 other
coordinates, where these last p - 2 components are distributed indepen-
dently of U 12 and U 13 and with zero means). The regions R i are determined
by three half lines as shown in Figure 6.2. If this procedure is minimax, we
cannot move the line between R I and R 2 rearer ( IL\l), IL~), the line between
R: and R3 nearer (IL\2l, jJ.V)), and the line between R~ and RI nearer
(IL(13l, ILq) and still retain the equality POll, R) = p(212, R) = p(313, R)
without leaving a triangle that is not included in any region. Thus, since the
regions must exhaust the space, the lines must meet in a pOint, and the
equality of probabilities determines c r - cJ uniquely.
6.8 CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF sEVERAL NORMAL POPULATIONS 239

----------------+-~--~~--------------zl
" '.JI
,P.'f,p.~),

R2

Figure 6.2. Classification regions.

To do this in a specific case in which we have numerical values for the

components of the vectors ,....(1), ,....(2\ ,....(3), and the mat.-ix I, we would con-
sider the three (;5; P + 1) joint distributions, each of two ~/s (j i). We "*
could try the values of Ci = 0 and, using tables [Pearson (1931)] of the
bivariate nonnal distribution, compute PGii, R). By a trial-and-error method
we could obtain ci to approximate the above condition.
The preceding theory has been given on the assumption that the parame-
ters are known. If they are not known and if a sample from each population
is available, the estimators of the parameters can be substituted in the
definition of uJx). Let the observations be X~I), •.• , x~! from N(,....U), I),
I. = 1, ... , m. W '
e estimate,....(i) by

(8)

and I by S defined by

(9)

Then, the analog of uij(x) is

(10)

If the variables above are random, the distributions are different from those
of ~j' However, as Ni -;. 00, the joint distributions approach those of Ui)"
Hence, for sufficiently large sa'Tlples one can use the theory given above.
240 CLASSIFICATION OF OBsERVATIONS

Table 6.2
Mean
Brahmin
Measurement ( 17"1)

Stature (x 1) 164.51 160.53 158.17

Sitting height (X2) 86,43 81.47 81.16
Nasal depth (x 3 ) 25.49 23.84 21.44
Nasal height (x 4 ) 51.24 48.62 46.72

6.9. AN EXAMPLE OF CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF SEVERAL

MULTIVARIATE NORMAL POPULATIONS

Rao (1948a) considers three populations consisting of the Brahmin caste

e7T 1 ), the Artisan caste (7T2), and the KOIwa caste (7T3) of India. The

measurements for each individual of a caste are stature (Xl), sitting height
(x 2), nasal depth (x 3), and nasal height (x 4). The means of these variables in
the three populations are given in Table 6.2. The matrix of correlations for
all the ~opulations is

1.0000 0.5849 0.1774

0.1974]
0.5849 1.0000 0.2094 0.2170
(1) 0.2910 .
[ 0.1774 0.2094 1.0000
0.1974 0.2170 0.2910 1.0000

The standard deviations are (J"I = 5.74, (J"2 = 3.20, (J"3 = 1.75, 0"4 = 3.50. We
assume that each population is normal. Our problem is to divide the space of
the four variables Xl' X2, X3, X4 into three regions of classification. We
assume that the costs of misclassification are equal. We shall find (i) a set of
regions under the assumption that drawing a new observation from each
population is equally likely (q 1 = q2 = q3 = t), and Oi) a set of regions such
that the largest probability of misclassification is minimized (the minimax
solution).
We first compute the coefficients of I-I (f.L( I) - f.L(2) and I - I (f.L(I) - f.L(3).
Then I-I(f.L(2) - f.L(3) = I-I(f.L(I) - f.L(3) - I-I(f.L(I) - f.L(2). Then we calcu-
late ~(f.L(i) + f.L(j), I - I (f.L(/) - f.L(j). We obtain the discriminant functions t

UI2 (X) = -0.0708x I + 0.4990x 2 + 0.3373x3 + 0.0887x4 - 43.13,

(2) uI3(x) = O.0003XI + 0.3550X2 + 1.1063x3 + 0.1375x 4 - 62.49,
U23(X) = 0.0711x 1 - 0.1440x 2 + 0.7690x 3 + 0.0488x 4 - 19.36.

tOue to an error in computations, Rao's discriminant functions are incorrect. I am indebted to

Mr. Peter Frank for assistance in the computations.
6.9 AN EXAMPLE OF CLASSIFICATION 241

Table 6.3
Standard
Population of x u Means Deviation Correlation

1TI U1Z 1.491 1.727

0.8658
un 3.487 2.641

1T2 U21 1.491 1.727

u _ -0.3894
2 1.031 1.436

1T3 u':ll 3,487 2.MI

0.7983
u32 1.031 1.436

'l'he other three functions are U21(X) = -u 12 (x), U31 (X) = -U I3 (X), and
U32(X) = -U 23(X), If there are a priori probabilities and they are equal, the
best set of regions of classification are R 1: UI2(X) ~ 0, HI/X) ~ 0; R:.:
U21 (X) 2 0, u 23 (X):2::. 0; and R3: U31(X) ~ 0, U32 (X) ~ O. For example, if we
obtain an individual with measurements x such that U I 2(X) ~ and U I3 (X):2::. a
0, we classify him as a Brahmin.
To find the probabilities of misclassification when an individual is drawn
from population 1Tg we need the means, variances, and covariances of the
proper pairs of u's. They are given in Table 6.3. t
The probabilities of misclassification are then obtained by use of the
tables for the bivariate normal distribution. These probabilities are 0.21 for
1Tl' 0.42 for 1T 2 , and 0.25 for 1T3' For example, if measurements are made on
a Brahmin, the probability that he is classified as an Artisan or Korwa is 0.21.
The minimax solution is obtained by finding the constants C I' c:.. and c.
for (3) of Section 6.8 so that the probabilities of misclassification are equal.
The regions of classification are

R'[: U[2(X) ~ 0.54, U 13 ( x) ~ 0.29 ;

(3) R~: U 21( x) 2 - 0.54, U Z3 (x} ~ -0.25;

R;: U 31 ( x) 2 ·~0.29, U32(X)~ 0.25.

The common probability of misclassification (to two decimal places) is 0.30.

Thus the maximum probability of misclassification has been reduced from
0.42 to 0.30.

t Some numerical errors in Anderson (l951a) are corrected in Table 6.3 and (3).
2~2 CLASSIFICATION 01-' OBSERVATIONS

6.10. CLASSIFICATION INTO ONE OF TWO KNOWN MULTIVARIATE

NOAAL<\L POPULATIONS WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES

6.10.1. Likelihood Procedures

Let 1T1 and 1T2 be N(fJP\ I I) and N(JL(2), I 2 ) with JL(I) *" JL(2) and I I *" I 2.
When the parameters are known, the likelihood ratio is

IIl; exp[ - Hx - JL(l»)'I II (x - JL(I»)]

(l) =--~--~~~----~--~~--~~
II II ~ exp[ - 4(x - JL(2J)' I2 I (x - JL(2))]

= II 2 1!IIII-!exp[!(x- JL(2»)'I 1 (X- JL(2») 2

- Hx - JL(I»)' I ll( x - JL(I»)].

The logarithm of (1) is quadratic in x. The probabilities of misclassification

are difficult to compute. [One can make a linear transformation of x so that
its covariance matrix is I and the matrix of the quadratic form is diagonal;
then the logarithm of (1) has the distribution of a linear combination of
noncentral X 2-variables plus a constant.]
When the parameters are unknown, we consider the problem as testing
the hypothesis that x, x~I), ... , x~; are observations from N(JL(I), II) and
xi:\ ... , x~~ are observations from N(JL(2), I 2 ) against the alternative that
\', are 0 bservatlons
XI(I J, ..•. X (I) . f rom N( JL,
(I) ~)
k I an d x, XI(2) , .•. , X (2) are 0 b ser-
Nl
vations from N(JL(2), I 2 ). Under the first hypothesis the maximum likelihood
estimators are fLV) = (Nli(l) +x)/(NI + 1), fL(?) =i(2),

~k I (1) _
- N[
1
+ 1 [ A[ + N[
NI + 1 ( x _ x-(1)( x _ x
(I»'} ,

where A I = "N, (XCI) - x-(I)(x(1) - i(/J)' i = 1 2 (See Section 655) Under

~a= I II a ' ," -- • •
the second hypothesis the maximum likeli hood estimators are fL(d) = i(l),
fJ.~) =(N~i(2) +x)/(N2 + 1),

(3)
~k 2 (2) -
- N2 1+ 1 [ A 2 + N2N2+ 1 (x - x-(2»( x - x-(2»,] .
6.10 POPULATIONS WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES 243

The likelihood ratio criterion is

IIl(2)I~Nqi2(2)lk(Nl+1) [1 + (X_i(2»)IA21(X-i(2»)]~(N2+1)
(4) =~--------------------~-----
Itl(1)I¥N,+1lIi2(1)I~N2 [1 + (x-x(1»)'All(x _X(l»)]~(NI+1)

(Nl + 1)~(N,+I)PMN2PIA21~
Nt N'P (N2 + 1)~(N2+I)pIAIII; .

The obseIVation x is classified into 1Tl if (4) is greater than 1 and into 1T 2 if
(4) is less than 1-
An alternative criterion is to plug estimates into the logarithm of (1). Use

to classify into 1T I if (5) is large and into 1T 2 if (5) is small. Again it is difficult
to evaluate the probabilities of misclassification.

6.10.2. Linear Procedures

The best procedures when II '* 12 are not linear; when the parameters are
known, the best procedures are based on a quadratic function of the vector
obseIVation x. The procedure depends very much on the assumed normality.
For example, in the case of p = 1, the region for classification with one
population is an inteIVal and for the other is the complement of the interval
-that is, where the obseIVation is sufficiently large or sufficiently smalL In
the bivariate case the regions are defined by conic sections; for examlJle, tpe
region of classification into one population might be the interior of an ellip..,e
or the region between two hyperbolas. In general, the regions are defmed by
means of a quadratic function of the obseIVations which is not necessarily a
positive definite quadratic form. These procedures depend very much on the
assumption of llormality and especially on the shape of the normal distribu-
tion far from its center. For instance, in the univariate case cited above the
region of classification into the first population is a finite inteIVal because the
density of the first population falls off in either direction more rapidly than
the density of the second because its standard deviation is smaller.
One may want to use a classification procedure in a situation where the
two popUlations are centered around different points and have different
patterns of scatter, and where one considers multivariate normal distribu-
tions to be reasonably good approximations for these two popUlations near
their centers and between their two centers (though not far from the centers,
where the densities are small). In such a case one may want to divide the
244 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

sample space into the two regions of classification by some simple curve or
surface. The simplest is a li~e or hyperplane; the procedure may then be
termed linear.
Let b (¢ 0) be a vector (of p components) and c a scalar. An observation
x is classified as from the first population if b' x ;;:::. c and as from the second if
b'x <c. We are primarily interested in situatIons where the important
difference between the two populations is the difference between the cen-
ters; we assume j.L{l) ¢ j.L(2) as well as II ¢ I 2 , and that II and I2 are
nonsingula r.
When sampling from the ith population, b' x has a univariate normal
distribution with mean 8(b' xln) = b' j.L{i) and variance

The probability of misclassifying an observation when it comes from the first

population is

(7)

The probability of misclassifying an observation when it come3 from the

second population is

(8)

It is desired to make these probabilities small or, equivalently, to make the

arguments

b' j.L(l) - C c- b'j.L(2)

(9)
YI = (b'IIb)t' Y2 = (b'I 2 b)I

large. We shall consider making YI large for given Y2'

When we eliminate c from (9), we obtain

(10)
6.10 POPULATIONS WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES 245

where "I = fLU) - fL(2). To maximize YI for given Y:. we differentiate YI with
respect to b to obtain

(11) [ "I -- Y2 (b'.I:; b) - +.I::. b1( b'.I I b ) - !

-[b''Y -Y2(b'.I2b)~](b'.Ilb)-~.Ilb.
If we let

(12)

(13)

then (11) set equal to 0 is

(14)
Note that (13) and (14) imply (12). If there is a pair t l , t 2 • and a vector b
satisfying (12) and (13), then c is obtained from (9) as

(15)
Then from (9), (12), and (13)
b'fL(l) (t 2 b'.I 2 b + b'f.l(:!l) r.-:-:;,:;;--::-
(16) YI= Vb'.I1b =tIVb.I1b.

Now consider (14) as a function of t (0 S t S 1). Let t I = t and t::. 1 - r;

then b=(tl.I 1 +t2 .I 2 )-I'Y. Define VI =tIVb'.I1b and V2=t2Vb'.I2b. The
derivative of vt
with respect to t is

(17) ~t t 2 "I' [ t .I I + (1 - t ) .I 2 r I .I I [ t .I 1 + ( 1 - t) .I 2] - I '"

= 2t'Y t .I I + (1 - t) .I2 r
I [ 1 .I I [ t .I 1 + ( 1 - t) .I 2 r I "I
-t2'Y'[t.I1 + (1- t).I2r\.Il - .I::)[t.I 1 + (1 t).I 2 ] I
. .II[t.I 1 + (l-t).I:d I",
1
- t2 'Y'[t.I 1 + (1-t).I 2r .II[t.I 1 + (l-t).I:d I
1
·(.II .I 2)[t.I 1 + (1-t}.I::.1- ",

=t'Y'[t.I 1 + (1-t}.I2rl{.I~[t.Il + (I -t).I 2 ] 1:£1

1
+.I1[t.I! +(1-t).I 2 r .I 2 }[t.I 1 +(I-t).I:,]-I",

by the following lemma.

246 CLASSIFICATION OF OBSERVATIONS

Lemma 6JO.1. If I I and I z are positive definite and tl > 0, t2 > 0, then

is posiriue definire.

Prout The matrix (18) is

(19)
•
Similarly dvi!dt < O. Since VI ~ 0, V2 ~ 0, we see that VI increases with t
from 0 at t=O to V-y'I1I'Y at t= 1 and V2 decreases from V'Y''i;i. 1 'Y at
I = 0 to 0 at I = 1. The coordinates v, and v2 are continuous functions of t.

Fot" given Y2' O~r,;s Vy'I 2I y, there is a t such that Y2=v 2 ==t zyb'I 2b
and b satisfies (14) for t, =t and t~ = I-t. Then' y, =v I =t,yb''i'lb maxi-
mizes y, for tLat value of h. Similarly given y" 0 SYI S J'Y'I~I'Y, there is
a I such that YI = v, = t,yb'I ,b and b satisfies (14) for tl = t and t2 = 1 - t,
and Y2 = V2 = t 2 yb'I 2 b maximizes Y2' Note that y, ~ 0, Y2 ~ 0 implies the
crror5 of misclassification are not greater Lhan ~.
We now argue that the set of y" Y2 defined this way correspond to
admissihle linear procedures. Let x" x 2 be in this set, and suppose another
procedure defined by z" Z2. were better than Xl' X2, that is, x, s Z" x 2 S Z2
with at least one strict inequality. For YI = z, let y~ be the maximum Y2
among linear procedures; then ZI = Y" Z2 sy~ and hence Xl sy., X2 sy~.
Hov. eva, this is possible only if x I = y,. X z = yL because dy,/dY2 < O. Now
wc have a contradiction to the assumption that z" Z2 was better than x" x 2 •
Thus x ,. x: corresponds to an admissible linear procedUre.

Use of Admissible Linear Procedures

Given t I and t"2 such that t, I I + t 2 12 is positive definite, one would
eomputL' the optimum b by solving the linear equations (15) and then
compute c by one of (9). U~ually t I and t2 are 110t given, but a desired
solution is specified in another way. We consider three ways.

Minimization of One Probability of Misclassijication for a Specijied

Probability of the Other
Sltppose we arc given Y2 (or, equivalently, the probability of misclassification
when sampling from the second distribution) and we want to maximize YI
(or. equivalently, minimize the probability of misclassification when sampling
from the first distribution). Suppose Y2 > 0 (i.e., the given probability of
misclassification is less than t).
Then if the maximum Y I ~ 0, we want to find
t2 = 1 - t, such that Y2 = tib'Izb)t, where b = [tIll + t 21 2 ]-I'Y. The sotu-
6.10 POPULATIONS WITH UNEQUAL COVARIANCE MATRICEs 247

tion can be approximated by trial and error, since Y2 i~ an increasing function

of t 2. For t2 = 0, Y2 = 0; and for t:'. = 1, Y2 = (b'I2b)~ = (b''Y)} = ('Y'i,'2 I 'Y),
where I 2b = 'Y. One could try other values of t2 successively by solving (14)
and inserting in b'I 2b until tib'I 2 b)! agreed closely enough with the
desired h. [Yl > 0 if the specified Y2 < ('Y'I;-I'Y)!.]

The Minimax Procedure

The minimax procedure is the admissible procedure for which YI = h. Since
for this procedure both probabilities of correct classification are greater than
t, we have YI =Y2 > 0 and tl > 0, t 2 > O. We want to find t (= tl = 1- t 2) so
that

(20) 0= Yt - y~ = t2b'Ilb - (1 - t)2 b'I 2b

=b'[t 2 I I - (l-t)2 I2 ]b.

Since Yt increases with t and y~ decreases with increasing t, there is one and
only one solution to (20), and this can be approximated by trial and error by
guessing a value of t (0 < t < 1), solving (14) for b, and computing the
quadratic form on the right of (20). Then another t can be tried.
An alternative approach is to set Yl = Y2 in (9) and solve for c. Then the
common value of Y I = Y2 is

b''Y
(21)

and we want to fin d b to maximize this, where b is of the form

(22)

with 0 < t < 1.

When II:-= I 2 , twice the maximum of (21) is the squared Mahalanobis
distance between the populations. This suggests that when I I may be
unequal to I 2 , twice the maximum of (21) might be called the distance
between the populations.
Welch and Wimpress (1961) have programmed the minimax procedure
and applied it to the recognition of spoken sounds.

Case of A Priori Probabilities

Suppose we are given a priori probabilities, ql and q2, of the first and second
populations, respectively. Then the probability of a misclassification is
248 CLASSIFICATIONOF OBsERVATIONS

which we want to minimize. The solution will be an admissible linear

procedure. If we know it involves YI ~ 0 and Y2 ~ 0, we can substitute
Yl = t(b'I1b)I and h = (1 - t)(b'I 2 b)i, where b = [tIl + (1 - 01 2 ]-1,)"
into (23) and set the derivative of (23) with respect to t equal to 0, obtaining

dYI dh
(24) ql<b(YI)dt +q2<b(h) dt =0,

where <b(u) = (27T)- te- t • There does not seem to be any easy Or direct
1l2

way of solving (24) for t. The left-hand side of (24) is not necessarily
monotonic. In fact, there may be several roots to (24). If there are, the
absolute minimum will be found by putting the solution into (23). (We
remind the reader that the curve of admissible error probabilities is not
necessary convex,)
Anderson and Bahadur (1962) studied these linear procedures in general,
including YI < 0 and Y2 < O. Clunies-Ross and Riffenburgh (1960) ap~
proached the problem from a mOre geometric pOint of view.

PROBLEMS

6.1. (Sec. 6.3) Let 7T, be N(fL, Ii)' i = 1,2. Find the form of th~ admissible
classification procedures.

6.2. (Sec. 6.3) Prove that every complete class of procedures includes the class of
admissible procedures.

6.3. ~S~c. 6.3) Prove that if the class of admissible procedures is complete, it is
minimal complete.

6.4. (SCI.:. 6.3) The Neymall-Pearsoll!ulldamclllallemma states that of all tests at a

given significance level of the null hypothesis that x is drawn from PI(X)
agaimt alternative that it is drawn from plx) the most powerful test has the
critical region PI(X)/P2(x) < k. Show that the discussion in Section 6.3 proves
this result.

6.5. (Sec. 6.3) When p(x) = n(xl fl., 1:) find the best test of fl. = 0 against fl. = fl.*
at significance level e. Show that this test is unifonnly most powerful against all
alternatives fl. = Cfl.*, C > O. Prove that there is no uniformly most powerful test
against fl. = fl.(l) and fl. = fl.(2) unless fl.(l) = CIL(2) for some C > O.

6.6. (Sec. 6.4) Let P(210 and P<1!2) be defined by (14) and (15). Prove if
- 4.:12 < C < 4.:12, then P(210 and P(112) are decreasing functions of d.

6.7. (Sec. 6.4) Let x' = (x(I)" X(2),). Using Problem 5.23 and PrOblem 6.6, prove
that the class of classification procedures based on x is uniformly as good as
the class of procedures based on X(I).
PROBLEMS 249

6.8. (Sec. 6.5.1) Find the criterion for classifying irises as Iris setosa or Iris
versicolor on the basis of data given in Section 5.3.4. Classify a random sample
of 5 Iris virginica in Table 3.4.

6.9. (Sec.6.5.0 Let W(x) be the classification criterion given by (2). Show that the
r 2-criterion for testing N(jJ.0), I.) == N(jJ.(2), I.) is proportional to W(ill,) and
W(i(2»).

6.10. (Sec. 6.5.1) Show that the probabilities of misclassification of x I - ... , XN (all
assumed to be from either 'lT 1 or 'lT2) decrease as N increases.

6.Il. (Sec. 6.5) Show that the elements of M are invariant under the transforma-
tion (34) and that any function of the sufficient statistics that is invariant is a
function of M.

6.12. (Sec. 6.5) Consider d' xU). Prove that the ratio

NI ~ N! ,
L (d'X~I) - d'i(l'f + L (d'X~2\ - d'i(2)f
a=I a~l

6.13. (Sec. 6.6) Show that the derivative of (2) to terms of order 11 -I is

6.14. (Sec. 6.6) Show GD2 is (4). [Hint: Let I. = I and show that G( S - II J: = 1) ==
[n/(n - p - 0]1.]

6.15. (Sec. 6.6.2) Show

= cP(U){_1_2 [u 3 + (p - 3)u -/~,?-U + p~]

2Nltl

+ _1-2 [u 3 + 2tlu2. + (p - 3 + tl2 ) U - tl3 + p~]

2N2 !:i.

1
+ 4n [3u 3 + 4tl u 2 + (2 P - 3 + tl2 ) U + 2(p - 1) tl ] } + 0 (n - 2 ) •

6.16. (Sec. 6.8) Let 'lTi be N(jJ.(il, I.), i = 1.. .. , m. If the jJ.(1) arc on a line (i.e ..
jJ.(i) = jJ. + VIP), show that for admissible procedures the Rr are defined by
parallel planes. Thus show that only one discriminant function u fl. (x) need be
used.
250 CLASSIfiCATION OF OBSERVATIONS

6.17. (Sec. 6.8) In Section 8.8 data are given on samples from four pOpulations of
skulls. Consider the first two measurements and the first three sample~.
Construct the classification functions UiJ(X). Find the procedure for qi =
N,/( N) + N'1 + N'!». Find the minimax procedure.

6.18. (Sec. 6.10) Show that b' x = c is the equation of a plane that is tangent to an
ellipsoid of constant density of 71') and to an ellipsoid of constant density of 71'2
at a common point.

6.19. (Sec. 6.8) Let x\/), ... , xWI be observations from N(fJ.(I), 1:), i = 1,2,3, and let
.l be an observation to be classified. Give explicitly the maximum likelihood
rule.

6.20. (Sec. 6.5) Verify (33).

CHAPTER 7

The Distribution of the Sample

Covariance Matrix and the
Sample Generalized Variance

7.1. INTRODUCTION

The sample covariance matrix, S = [l/(N -l)]L~",/Xa - i)(x a - i)', is an

unbiased estimator of the population covariance matnx I. In Section 4.2 we
found the density of A = (N - 1)S in the case of a 2 x 2 matrix. In Section
7.2 this result will be generalized to the case of a matrix A of any order.
When I = 1, this distribution is in a sense a generalization of the X2-distri-
bution. The distribution of A (or S), often called the Wishart distribution, is
fundamental to multivariate statistical analysis. In Sections 7.3 and 7.4 we
discuss some properties of tre Wishart distribution.
The generalized variance of the sample is defined as ISI in Section 7.5; it
is a measure of the scatter of the sample. Its distribution is characterized.
The density of the set of all correlation coefficients when the components of
the observed vector are independent is obtained in Section 7.6.
The inverted Wishart distribution is introduced in Section 7.7 and is used
as an a priori dIstribution of I to obtain a Bayes estimator of the covariance
matrix. In Section 7.8 we consider improving on S as an estimator of I with
respect to two loss functions. Section 7.9 treats the distributions for sampling
from elliptically contoured distributions.

An Introduction to Multiuarlate Statistical AnalysL~, Third Edition. By T. W, Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons. Inc,

251
252 COVARIANCF,MATRIX DlSl RIAUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

7,:t THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION

We shall obtain the distribution of A = L~= I(Xa - XXXa - X)'. where

Xl>"" X N (N > p) are independent, each with the distribution N(JJ-, I), As
was shown in Section 3.3, A is distributed as L:= I Za Z~, where n = N - 1
and Zp ... , Zn are independent, each with the distribution N(O, I). We shall
show that the density of A for A positive definite is

(1 )

We shall first consider the case of I = I. Let

(2)

Then the elements of A = (a I) are inner products of these n·component

vectors, aij = V; Vj' The vectors vl>"" vp are independently distributed, each
according to N(O, In)' It will be convenient to transform to new coordinates
according to the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. Let WI = VI'

(3) i=2"",p.

We prove by induction that Wk is orthogonal to Wi' k < i. Assume wkwh = 0,

k =1= h, k, h = 1, ... , i-I; then take the inner product of Wk and (3) to obtain
wk Wi = 0, k = 1, ... , i-I. (Note that Pr{llwili = O} = 0.)
Define til = Ilwill = VW;Wi' i = 1, ... , p, and tii = V;wJllwjll, j = 1" .. , i-I,
i = 2, ... ,p. Since V, = L~= ICtIj/llwjIDwi'
minCh ,j)
( 4) ahl = VhVi = L t h/ ,j ·
.j=l

If we define the lower triangular matrix T = (t ,f ) with t ,i > 0, i = 1, ... , p, and

t'l = 0, i <j, then
(5) A=TT'.

Note that t'j' j = 1, ... , i-I, are the first i - I coordinates of Vi in the
coordinate system with WI, ..• , w , - 1 as the first i - 1 coordinate axes. (See
Figure 7.1.) The sum of the other n - i + 1 coordinates squared is Ilv;1I 2 _.
L~.:~ti~=ti~ =llw,1I2; W, is the vector from Vi to its projection on Wp''''Wi-l
(or equivalently on v p " " vi _ I)'
7.2 THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION 253

~ __ ~------------------l

Figure 7.1. Transformation of cOC'rdinates.

Lemma 7.2.1. Condltionalon w1 , ... ,w,_ 1 (or equivalently on vp .... v, _1 ),

t,p' , . , t i , 1-1 and ti~ are independently distributed; ti]' is distributed according to
N(O, 1), i > j; and t,~ has the ,( 2-distributlon with n - i + 1 degrees of freedom.

Proof. The coordinates of v, referred to the new orthogonal coordinates

with VI"'" V,_ 1 defining the' first coordinate axes are independently nor-
mally distributed with means 0 and variances 1 (Theorem 3.3.1). t,~ is the sum
of th~ coordinates squared omitting the first I - 1. •

Since the conditional distribution of t n , •.• , tli does not depend on

VW",Vi_" they are distributed independently of tIPt2Pt2~" .. ,t'-l.,-I'

Corollary 7.2.1. Let Z." .. , Zll (n ?:.p) be independently distributed, each

according to N(O, /); let A = E:"" 1 Za Z~ = IT', rYhere t,} = 0, i <j, and t'i > 0,
i= 1,.,.,p. Then t ll ,t2P' .. ,tpp are independently distributed; t" is distributed
according to N(O, 1), i > j; and t~ has the X2-dlstribution with n - i + 1 degrees
a/freedom.
Since t,i has density 2- !(n-r-l)tn-Ie- ~12/rU(n + l-i)), the joint density
of til' j = 1, ... "i, i = 1, .. " p, is
p n-I exp (I""
tll - "21....,,,,1 t2)
IJ
(6)
D 1TW-I)2 in - r[hn + 1 - i)]
1
254 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANC3

Let C be a lower triangular matrix (c l ] = 0, i <j) such that 1= CC' and

C II > O. The linear transformation T* = CT, that is,

i
(7) t~ = L Clkt k], i ~j,
k=]

=0, i <j,

can be written

t71 c ll 0 0 o 0 tIl
ttl X C22 0 o 0 t2l
tr2 x x cn o 0 t22

( 8) =

'~I X X x

t;p x x x

where x denotes an element, possibly nonzero. Since the matrix of the

transformation is triangular, its determinant is the product of the diagona~
c:
elements, namely, n;= I l • The Jacobian of the transformation from T to T*
is the reciprocal of the determinant. The density of T* is obtained by
substituting into (6) tIl = t~/c/I and

p
(9) L L tl~· = tr TT'
1= 1 j= 1

= tr T*T* 'c' -IC- l

=trT*T*/I-l =trT*/I-lT*,

and using TI;=l c~ = ICIIC'I = Ill.

Theorem 7.2.1. Let Zp ... , Zn (n ~p) be independently distributed, each

r.
according to N(O " I)- let A = na=--l Z a Z'· and let A = T* T*' where t".I f
Q'
= 0
',

i < j, and tl~ > O. Then the density of T* is

( 10)
7.2 THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION 255

aa hi
<.11) at* = 0, k>h,
kl

=0, k=h, I>i;

tt,
that is, aah,! a = 0 if k, I is beyond h, i in the lexicographic ordering. The
Jacobian of the transformation from A to T* is the determinant of the lower
triangular matrix with diagonal elements

(12)

( 13)
aahi * h > i,
atti = t ir ,

The Jacobian is therefore 2 p n!~ 1ti~ {J + I-i. The Jacobian of the transfurma-
tion from T* to A is the reciprocal.

Theorem 7.2.2. Let Zl" .. , Zn be independently distributed, each according

to N(O, I). The density of A = L~= 1 Z" Z: is

( 14)

for A positive definite, and °otherwise.

Corollary 7.2.2. Let Xl' ... , X N (N > p) be independently distributed, each

according to N(p., I). Then the density of A = L~: I(X" - XXX" - X)' is (14)
for n =N - 1.

The density (14) will be denoted by w(AI I, n), and the associated distri-
bution will be termed WeI, n). If n < p, then A does not have a density, but
its distribution is nevertheless defined, and we shall refer to it as WeI, n),

Corollary 7.2.3. Let X h ..• , X N (N > p) be independently distributed, each

according to N(p., I). The distn"bution of S = (1/n)L~~l(X" -X)(X" -X)' is
W[(l/n)I, n], where n = N - 1.

Proof. S has the distribution of L~=l[(l/rn)Z,,][(l/v'n)Z,,]', where

(l/v'n)Zp .. ,,(l/v'n)ZN are independently distributed, each according to
N(O,(l/n)I). Theorem 7.2.2 implies this corollary. •
256 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

The Wishart distribution for p = 2 as given in Section 4,2.1 was derived by

Fisher (1915), The distribution for arbitrary p was obtained by Wishart
(1928) by a geometric argument using VI>"" vp defined above. As noted in
Section 3.2, the ith diagonal element of A is the squared length of the ith
vector, aff = "iv, = IIViIl2, and the i,jth off~diagonal element of A is the prod-
uct of the lengths of v, and v) and the cosine of the angle between them. The
matrix A specifies the lengths and configuration of the vectorS.
We shall give a geometric interpretation t of the derivation of the density
of the rectangular coordinates t,}, i "?: j, when 1: = I. The probability element
of tll is approximately the probability that IIvllllies in the intervrl tu < IIvllI
< til + dtll' This is tile probability that VI falls in a sphericdl shell in n
dimensions with inner radius til and thickness dtu' In this region, the density
(27r)- ~n exp( - tV/IV I ) is approximately constant, namely, (27r)- in exp(- tttl)'
The surface area of the unit sphere in n dimensions is C(n) =;" 27r in If(tn)
(Problems 7.1-7.3), and the volume of the spherical shell is approximately
C(n)t~l-I dtu' The probability element is the product of the volume and
approximate density, namely,

(15)

The probability element of til'"'' t r • i - P tii given VI'"'' Vi - 1 (i.e., given

Ww ' ., Wi -I) is approximately the probability that Vi falls in the region for
which til < v;wl/llw.1I < til + dt,l' ... , tl,i-I < v,'wi -. /1119, til < ti" I + dt"i_P
and t/l < II Wi II < tii - dtll' where Wi is the projection of Vi on the (n - i + 0-
dimensional space orthogonal to 191"'" Wi-I' Each of the first i-I pairs of
inequalities defines the region between two hyperplanes (the different pairs
being orthogonal), The last pair of inequalities defir,es a cylindrical shell
whose intersection with the G - I)-dimensional hyperplane spanned by
vl> •.• , VI-I is a spherical shell in n - i + 1 dimensions with inner radius til'
In this region the density (27r)- ~n exp( - ~v;' v) is approximately constant,
!
namely, (27r)- in exp( - L.~_I tl). The volume of the region is approximately
dt'l '" dtl,i_1 C(n - i + I)t~-' dtU' The probability element is

(16)

Then the product of (15) and (16) for i = 2, ... , p is (6) times dtu ... dtpp •
This aralysis, which exactly parallels the geometric derivation by Wishart
[and later by Mahalanobis, Bose, and Roy (1937)], was given by Sverdrup

tin the first edition of this book, the derivation of the Wishart distribution and its geometric
Interpretation were in terms of the nonorthogonal vectors "I"'" lip'
7.2 THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION 257

(1947) [and by Fog (1948) fOI' p = 31. Another method was used by Madow
(1938), who drew on the distributioll or correlatlon c()eITiL:knt~ (for 1 = J)
obtained by Hotelling by considering certain partial correlation coefficients.
Hsu (1939b) gave an inductive proof, and Rasch (1948) gave a method
involving the use of a functional equaLiol1. A daferent method is to obtain Lhc
characteristic function and invert it, as was done by Ingham (1933) and by
Wishart and Bartlett (1933).
Cramer (1946) verified that the Wishart distribution has the characteristic
function of A. By means of alternative matrix transformations Elfving (I 947).
Mauldon (1955), and Olkin and Roy (954) derived the Wi~hart distribution
via the Bartlett decomposition; Kshirsagar (1959) based his derivation on
random orthogonal transformations. Narain (1948), (1950) and Ogawa (1953)
us<.;d a regression approach. James (1954), Khatri and Ramachandran (1958),
and Khatri (1963) applied different methods. Giri (1977) used invariance.
Wishart (1948) surveyed the derivations up to that date. Some of these
methods are indicated in the problems.
The relation A = TT' is known as the Bartlett decompositio{( [Bartlett
(1939)], and the (nonzero) elements of T were termed rectangular coordinates
by Mahalanobi.c;, Bo,c;e, and Roy (1937),

Corollary 7.2.4

(17) I· -f IBI,-1(p+ll
8>0
e -lrB dB =
/=1
p
7Tl'lil-l)/~ nr[t - ~(i - 1)].

Proof Here B > 0 denotes B positive definite. Since (14) is a density. its
integral for A > 0 1S 1. Let 'I = J, A = 2B (dA = 2 dB), and 12 = 2t. Then the
fact that the integral is 1 is identical to (17) for t a half integer. However. if
we derive (14) from (6), we can let n be any real number greater than p .- 1.
In fact (17) holds for complex t such that !Ilt > p - 1. (/I/t means the real
part of t.) _

Definition 7.2.1. The multivadate gamma fullction is

f'
(18) rp(t) = 7TP(p-l)/~ nr[t - ~(i - 1)].
/'" I

The Wishart density can be written

IA I ~(I/- {J ~ I ) e ~ ~ If ~ 'I
(19) W( AII , n) = ":""""':"-:-,- - " , - - - - - -
2~{I"1 II-·II [~J( ~n)
= ...~o ............ ~ \ I., ... \..,. ~ ...... _ • ~ J.. " J. . , ..... &...' . . .' I. ...... ~ ......... ' - ' . I .... _ -- ........ .

7.3. SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION

7.3.1. The Characteristic Function

The characteristic function of the Wishart distribution can be obtained
directly from the distribution of the observations. Suppose ZI"'" Zn are
distributed independently, each with density

( 1)

Let

(2)
a=1

Introduce the p xp matrix 0 = (e i ) with eij = eJI • The characteristic func-

tion of All,A22" .. ,App,2AI22AI3, ... ,2Ap_l,p is

(3) ... exp[i tr{A0)] ~ ... exp(itr .~I z.z~e)

= S exp(i tr t Z~0Za)
a==1

= sexp(i i: Z~(H)Za).
a=1

It follows from Lemma 2.6.1 that

where Z has the density (1). For (H) real, there is a real nonsingular matrix B
such that
(5) B'I-IB =1,
(6) B'0B=D,
where D is a real diagonal matrix (Theorem A.: .2 of the Appendix). Jf we let
z = By, then
(7) cS' exp( iZ'0Z) = S exp( if' Df)
p
= sO exp(id"Y,z)
,= I

p
=
,=0 1 S exp(id"Y/)
7.3 SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION 259

by Lemma 2.6.2. The jth factor in the second product is tC exp(id;;Y/),

~here Y, has the distribution N(O, 1); this is the characteristic fun,ction of the
X 2·distribution with one degree of freedom, namely (1 - 2id ii )- z [as can be
proved by expanding exp(id"Y,2) in a power series and integrating term by
term]. Thus

p
(8) tC exp( iZ'0Z) = n (1- 2id,,)
,= I
-!
: = II - 2iDI- z
,

since 1- 2iD is a diagonal matrix. From (5) and (6) we see that

(9) 11- 2iDI = IB'I-IB - 2iB'0BI

= IB'(I-I - 2i0)BI
= IB'I'II-' -2i01·IBI
= IBI 2'II- 1 -2i01,

IB'I·II-II·IBI = 111= 1, and IBI2= I/II-il. Combining the above re·

suIts, we obtain

(10)

It can be shown that the result is valid provided (~(O"k - 2i8;k» is positive
definite. In particular, it is true for all real 0. It also holds for I singular.

Theorem 7.3.1. If Zl' .... Zn are independent, each with distribution

N(O. I), then the characteristic function of A II,.·., App. 2A I2 , .. ·, 2A p_ I , p'
where (A,,) =A = r,~=IZaZ~, is given by (10).

7.3.2. The Sum of Wishart Matrices

Suppose the A" i = 1,2, are distributed independently according to WeI, nj),
respectively. Then A I is distributed as r,:I= I Za Z~, and A2 is distributed as
r,~I:::12+IZo:Z~, where Zp .,., Zn,+112 are independent, each with distribution
N(O, I). Then A = A I + A2 is distributed as r,:= I Za Z~, where n = n l + n 2·
Thus A is distributed according to WeI, n). Similarly. the sum of q matrices
distributed independently, each according to a Wishart distribution with
covariance I, has a Wishart distribution with covariance matrix I and
number of degrees of freedom equal to the sum of the numbers of degrees of
freedom of the component matrices.
260 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; JENERAUZED VARIANCE

Theorem 7.3.2. If A p .•. , Aq are independently distributed with Ar dis·

tributed according to W(I, n,), then

(11)

is distributed according to W(I, 121= [nJ

7.3.3. A Certain Linear Transformation

We shah frequently make the transformation

(12) A =CBC',

where C is a nonsingular p x p matrix. If A is distributed according to

W(I. n), then B is distributed according to W(<I>, n) where

(13)

This is proved by the following argument: Let A = 12~", I Za Z~, where

Zp ... , Zn are independently distributed, each according to N(O, I). Then
Ya = C- I Za is distributed according to N(O, cfI). However,
n n
(14) Y y'=C- 1 "Z
B= "i..Jaa Z' C'-I =C-1AC'-1
i..Jaa
a"'1 0/"'1

is distributed according to W( <1>, n). Finally, Ia(A)/ a(B)I, the Jacobian of

the transformation (12), is

(15)

Theorem 7.3.3. The Jacobian of the transfonnation (12) from A to B, where

A and B are symmetric, is modi CIP+ I.

7.3.4. Marginal Distribntions

If A is distributed according to W(I, n), the marginal distribution of any
arbitrary set of the elements of A may be awkward to obtain. However, the
marginal distribution of some sets of elements can be found easily. We give
some of these in the following two theorems.
7.3 SOME PROPER11ES OF THE WISHART DISTRIBUTION 261

Theorem 7.3.4. Let A and I be pal1itioned into q and p - q rows and

columns,

(16)

If A is distributed according to W(I, n), then A II is distributed according to

WeIll' n).

Proof, A is distributed as L~=lZ,.Z~, where the Zu are independent, each

with the distribution N(O, I). Partition Za into subvectors of q and p - q
components, Zu = (Z~l)I, Z~21/)'. Then Z\I), ... , Z:/l are independent, each
with the distribution N(O, Ill)' and All is distributed as L~_IZ~I)Z~l)', which
has the distribution WeI I i' n). •

Theorem 7.3.5. Let A and I be pal1ilioned into PI,P2, ... ,Pq rows and
columns (PI + ... +P q = p),

(17) A=

If I l j = ° for i "" j and if A is distributed according to W(I, n), then

A II' A 22' ... , A qq are independently distributed and A II is distributed according to
W(I U' n).

Proof. A is distributed as L~= 1 Z"Z~, where Z I " ' " ZII are independently
distributed, each according to N(O, I). Let Z,. be partitioned

(18) Z =
Z~l). 1
" .
( z(q)
a

as A and I have been partitioned. Since II/ = 0, the sets Zill, ... ,
ZIIm, .•• , Z(q)
I ,"',
Z(q)
II are .md den
epen t . Th en A II -- ,(,II
l.....aR 1
ZO)ZO)'
a ,....
Il
A-
qq-
L~-l Z~Il>Z~9)' are independent. The rest ol Theorem 7.3,) follow .. from
Theorem 7.3.4. •
262 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

7.3.5. Conditional Distributions

In Section 4.3 we considered estimation of the parameters of the conditional
distribution of XU) given X(~) = xr~.). Application of Theorem 7.2.2 to Theo-
rem 4.3.3 yields the following theorem:

Theorem 7.3.6. Let A and I be partitioned into q and p _. q rows and

columns as in (16). If A is distributed according tc' W( I, n), the distribution ,Jf
All.~=All-At.:~A221A21 is W(I ll •2 ,n -p+q), fl2p-q.

Note that Theorem 7.3.6 implies that A Il • 2 is independent of A22 and

AI::: A:} regardless of I.

7.4. COCHRAN'S THEOREM

Cochran's theorem [Cochran (934)] is useful in proving that certain vector

quadratic j"onns are distributed as sums of vector squares. It is a statistical
statement of an algebraic theorem, which we shall give as a lemma.

Lemma 7.4.1. If the N x N symmetric matrix C, has rank rj , i = 1, .. " m,

and

(1)

then
m

(2) I: r, = N
1=1

is a necessary and sufficient condition for there to exist an N x N orthogonal

matli, P such that for i = 1, ... , m

o
(3) I
o
where I is of order r" the upper left-hand 0 is square of order Lj-== ~ r; (which is
vacuous for i = 1), and the lower-right hand 0 is square of order L~= i + 1 r; (which
is vacuous for i = m).

Proof The necessity follows from the fact that (1) implies that the sum of
(3) over i = 1, ... , m is IN' Now let us prove the sufficiency; we assume (2).
7.4 COCHRAN'S THEOREM 263

There eXlsts an orthogonal matrix P, such that PjC;P; is diagonal with

diagonal elements the characteristic roots of Cr' The number of nonzero
roots is r" the rank of C" and the number of 0 roots is N - r" We write

o
(4) ~,
o
where the partitloning is according to (3), and ~, is diagonal of order ri' This
is possible in view of (2). Then

o
(5) I-~ ,
o
Since the rank of (5) is not greater than L:~~ 1 r, - r, = N - r" whlch is the sum
of the orders of the upper left-hand and lower right-hand 1 's in (5). the rank
of I-~, is 0 and ~,= I, (Thus the r, nonzero rootS of C, are 1, and C1 is
positive semidefinite.) From (4) we obtain

o
(6) 1
o
where B, con~ists of the rl columns of P; corresponding to 1 in (6). From (1)
we obtain

B,
B'2
(7) =P'P,

B'm

We now state a multivariate analog to Cochran's theorem.

Theorem 7.4.1. Suppose Y1, •• • , YN are independently distributed, each ac-

cording to N{O, I). Suppose the matrix (c~p) = C, used in fonning

N
(8) Q,= E c~pYaY;, i= l •.. "m,
()(. {3 '" I
264 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERAUZED VARIANCE

is of rank r and suppose

"

(9)
;=1 a=1

Then (2) is a necessary and sufficient condition for Q1"'" Qm to be indepen-

dently distributed with Qj having the distribution WeI, ri ).

It follows from (3) that Ci is idempotent. See Section A.2 of the Appendix.
This theorem is useful in generalizing results from the univariate analysis
of variance. (See Chapter 8.) As an example of the use of this theorem, let us
prove that the mean of a sample of size N times its transpose and a multiple
of the sample covariance matrix are independently distributed with a singular
and a nonsingular Wishart distribution, respectively. ~t YI , ... , YN be inde-
pendently distributed, each according to N(O, I). We shall use the matrices
J)
C1 = (C~1~) = (liN) and Cz = (42 = [8a .8 - (lIN)]. Then

~ 1 --
(10) Q1 = '-' NYa Y~ = NYY',
a, {:I-I

(11)

N
= 2: YaY~ - NIT'
a"'l
N
= 2: (Ya - Y)(Ya - Y)"
a=l

and (9) is satisfied. The matrix C1 is of rank 1; the matrix C2 is of rank N - 1

(since the rank of the sum of two matrices is less than or equal to the sum of
the ranks of the matrices and the rank of the second matrix is less than N).
The conditions of the theorem are satisfied; therefore Q1 is distributed as
ZZ', where Z is distributed according to N(O, I), and Q2 is distributed
independently according to WeI, N - 1).
Anderson and Styan (l982) have given a survey of pruofs and extensions of
Cochran's theorem.

7.5. THE GENERALIZED VARIANCE

7.5.1. Definition of the Genera1ized Variance

One multivariate analog of the variance u 2 of a univariate distribution is the
covariance matrix I. Another multivariate analog is the scalar II I, which is
75 THE GENERALIZED VARIANCE 265

called the generalized variancl~ of the multivariate distribution [Wilks (1932):

see also Frisch (1929)]. Similuly, the generalized variance of the sample of
vectors x l " ' " X N is

1 N
(1) lSI N=t L (xa i)(xa- x)'.
a-I

In some sense each of these is a measure of spread. We consider them here

because the sample generalized variance will recur in many likelihood ratio
criteria for testing hypotheses.
A geometric interpretation of the sample generalized variance comeS from
considering the p rows of X = (x t , •.•• x N ) as P vectors in N-dimensional
space. In Section 3.2 it was shown that the rows of

(2) ( xt-x- •... ,xN-x

-) = X -xe.
- ,

where e = (1, ... , 1)', are orthogonal to the equiangular line (through the
origin and e); see Figure 3.2. Then the entries of

(3) A=(X xe')(X-xe')'

are the inner products of rows of X - xe'.

We now define a parallelotope determined by p vectorS v l " ' " vp in an
n-dimensional space (n '2!p). If p = 1, the parallelotope is the line segment
VI' If P = 2. the parallelotope is the parallelogram with VI and v 2 as principal
edges; that is, its sides are VI, V 2 , VI translated so its initial endpoint is at v~.
and v 2 translated so its initial endpoint is at ~Il' See Figure 7.2. If p = 3. the
parallelotope is the conventional parallelepided wit h V I. l}~, and v) as

Figure 7.2. A parallelogram.

266 COVARIANCEMI\TRIX DI!;TRIBUTlON;GENERALIZEDVARIANCE

principal edges. In general, the parallelotope is the figure defined by the

principal edges l'I"'" l'p' It is cut out by p pairs of parallel (p - 1)-
dimensiomll hyperplanes, one hyperplane of a pair being span Qed by p - 1 of
l'\ ..... l·/, and the other hyperplane going through the endpoint of the
n:maining vector.

Theorem 7.5.1. If V=(vt, ...• vp ), then the square of the p-dimensional

volume of the pamllelotope with v I" •• ,v/1 as principal edges is I V'J!l.

Pro(4: If p = 1, then IV'J!l = lltVI = IIv1lf, which is the square of the

one-dimensional volume of VI' If two k-dimensional parallelotopes have
bases consisting of (k - l)-dimensional parallelotopes of equal (k - 1)-
dimensional voh.lmes and equal altitudes, their k-dimensional volumes are
c.qual lsince the k-dimen~ional volume is the integral of the (k - 1)-
dimensional volumesl. In particular, the volume of a k-dimensional parallelo-
tope is equal to the volume of a parallelotope with the same 'lase (in k - 1
dimensions) and same altitude with sides in the kth direction orthogonal to
the first k - I din:ctions. Thus the volume of the parallelotope with principal
edges l·l .... ,l·k. say Pk , is equal to the volume of the parallelotope with
principal edges 1. 1••.• • l'A -I' say Pk -I' times the altitude of Pk over Pk'- l ;
that ts.

(4)

It follows (by induction) that

By tlH.: construction in Section 7.2 the altitude of J\ over Pk - I is ta = !\wkll;

that is. tu is the distance of I'A from the (k - D·dimensional space spanned
by l·! .... ,l'A t (or wt .... 'W k _ I )· Hence VoIU',)= llf=t!u. Since IV'J!l ==
IIT'I = nf~ I t~, the theorem is proved. •

We now apply this theorem to the parallelotope having the rows of (2)
as principal edges. The dimensionality in Theorem 7.5.1 is arbitrary (but at
least p).

Corol1ary 7.5.1. The square of the p-dimensional volume of the parallelo-

tope with tire rows of (2) as principal edges is IAI, where A is given by (3).

We shall see later that many multivariate statistics can be given an

interpretation in terms of these volumes. These volumes are analogous to
distances that arise in special cases when p = L
75 THE GENERALIZED VARI \NeE 267

We now consider a geometric interpretation of \A \ in terms of N points in

p-space. Let the columns of the matrix (2) be Y1>"" YN' representing N
points in p-space. When p = 1, \AI = Eayra, which is the sum of 3quarcs of
the distances from the points to the origin. In general IAI is the sum of
squares of the volumes of all parallelotopes formed by taking as principal
edges p vectors from the set Y1"'" YN'
We see that

Lyrlf LY1aYp-l.a LYlI3 Yp.s

a a {3

( 6) IAI =
LYp-l.aYla LY;-l.a LYp- I, .sYP I3
a a {3

LY/,lfYJa LYPlfY,,-l.lf LY;13

a a {3

LYta LYlaYp-l.a Yll3Ypl3

a a

=L LYp-t. aYla LY;-l.a Yp- l • .sYpl3

{3 a a
2
LYpaYla LYpaYp-l.a Yp~
a a

by the rule for expanding determinants. (See (24) of Section Al of the

Appendix.] In (6j the matrix A has been partitioned into p - 1 and 1
columns. Applying the rule successively to the columns, we find
N
(7) IAI = L 1YWJY/Il J I·
alP •• , ap-t

By Theorem 7.5.1 the square of the volume uf the parallelutope with

Y"fl"'" Y"fp' 'YI < .. , < 11" as principal edges is

(8)

where the sum on f3 is over ('Y I' ... , 'Yp). If we now expand this determinant
in the manner used for IA I, we obtain

(9)
268 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

where the sum is for each f3; over the range ('Y I' ... , 'Yp )' Summing (9) over all
different sets ('YI < .. ' 'Yp )' we obtain (7). (IYi.BjY'.B) = 0 if two or more f3; are
equal.) Thus IAI is the sum of volumes squared of all different parallelotopes
formed by sets of p of the vectors yO'. as principal edges. If we replace YOi by
xa - i, we can state the following theorem:

Theorem 7.5.2. Let lSI be defined by (1), where Xl'.·.' XN are the N
vectors of a sample. Then lSI is proportional to the sum of squares of the
volumes of all the different parallelotopes fonned by using as pn'ncipal edges p
vectors with p of Xl'··.' XN as one set of endpoints and i as the other, and the
factor of proportionality is 1I(N - l)p,

The population analog of ISI is II I, which can also be given a geometric

interpretation. From Section 3.3 we know that

(10) Pr{ XII -I X s;, X;( ex)} '''' 1 - ex

if X is distributed according to N(O, I); that is, the probability is 1 - ex that

X fall i-1sid~ the ellipsoid

(11 )

The v~lume of this ellipsoid is C(p)1 II t[ Xp2(ex)]W Ip, where C(p) is defined
in Problem 7.3.

7.5.2. Distribution of the Sample GeneraHzed Variance

The distribution of ISI is the same as the distribution of IA I I(N - l)p, where
A = E~=l Za Z~ and Zp ... , Zn are distributed independently, each according
to N(O, I), and n = N - L Let Za = CYa , ex = 1, ... , n, where ee' = I. Then
YI , ... , Yn are independently distributed, each with distribution N(O, I). Let
n n
(12) B= L YaY~= L e-IZaZ~(e-l)' =e-IA(e- I );
01=1 a=1

then IAI = Iel·IBI ·1 ell = IBI·I II. By the development in Section 7.2 we
see that IBI has the distribution of nr=l tt- and that t;l,"" t;p are indepen-
dently distributed with X 2-distributions.

Theorem 7.5.3. The distribution of the generalized van'ance lSI of a sample

Xl"'" X N from N(V-, I) is the same as the distribution of III I(N - l)p times
the product of p independent factors, the distribution of the ith factor being the
X 2-distribution with N - i degrees of freedom.
75 THE GENERALIZBD VARIANCE 269

If p = 1, lSI has the distribution of III 'X~-l I(N - 1). If p = 2, lSI has
the distribution of IIlx~-l' x~-2/(N - 1)2. It follows from Problem 7.15 or
7.37 that when p = 2, lSI has the distribution of III( X1N_4)2 1(2N - 2)~. We
can write

(13) IAI = III XX~-l XX~-2 x ,'. XX~_p.

If P = 2r, then IAI is ~istributed as

(J4) 't'l( X2N-4

l .. 2 2 2)2
X X2N-8 X '" X X2N-4r I 22, '
Siace the hth moment ofax 2-variable with m degrees of freedom is
2"n!m + h)/f(!m) and the moment of a product of independent variables
is the product of the moments of the variables, the hth moment of IA I is

(15) III"fr{2"r[h~-i)~h]} =2hPIIlhnr~lr[!(~-i).+h]

i'" 1 r h: (N - l) 1 n ;= r h (N -
I 1) ]
r [1(N-1) +h]
- 2hp II Ih -'P'---:!."....,-_ _- . - _
- rAHN - 1)]
Thus
p
(16) SIAl IIIO(N-i).
i= 1

(17) r(IAll=III'}](N-iJ[pr(N-j+2l - nr(N-n1.

where r(IA I) is the variance of IA I.

7.5.3. The Asymptotic Distribution of the Sample Generalized Variance

Let ISl/n P V1(n) x V2(n) x ',. x Vin), where the V's are independently
distributed and nV:.(n) = l{;-p+,' Since X;-P+I is distributed as I:::~+' W,/.
wnere the Wa are independent, each with distribution N(O, 1), the central
limit theorem (applied to W(2) states that

i
nV;(n) - (n--y +i) = In V;(n) -1 + n
(13)
"';2( n - p f-i) 12 VI _P ; i

is asymptotically distributed according to N(O,1). Then mn'';(n) - 11 is

asymptotically distributed according to N(O, 2). We now apply Theorem 4.2.3.
270 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

We have

Vl(n)]
( 19) U(n)= : ,
(~(n)
IBI In P = w = f(u!> .. " up) = U t U 2 ••• up> T = 21, afl auil ll _ b = 1, and CP~TCPb
= 2p. Thus

(20)

is asymptotically distributed according to N(0,2p).

Theorem 7.5.4. Let S be a p X P sample covariance matrix with n degrees of

freedom. Then rn
(I S\ I II I - 1) is asymptotically normally distributed with
mean 0 and variance 2 p.

7.6. DISTRIBUTION OF THE SET OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

WHEN THE POPULATION COVARIANCE MATRIX IS DIAGONAL-

In Section 4.2.1 we found the distribution of a single sample correlation when

the corresponding population correlation was zero. Here we shall find the
density of the set rl}' i <}, i, J = 1, ... ,p, when PI} = 0, i <i.
We start with the distribution of A when ~ is diagonal; that is,
W[(U,r81)' n]. The density of A is

la)!(n-p-l)exp( -tEf.. laiJU,l)

(1)
2 inp n p
1-1
u!nr(ln)
Il P 2

since

u ll 0 0
0 U 22 0 P
(2) III = = Il
i= 1
uu'

0 0 OPp
We make the transformation

(3) i:;:},

(4) all = all'

7.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SET OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 271

The Jacobian is the product of the Jacobian of (4) and that of (3) for ail
fixed. The Jacobian of (3) is the determinant of a p(p -O/2-order diagonal
matrix with diagonal elements va;; ,;a;;.
Since each particular subscript k,
say, appem in the set rif (i <j) p - 1 times, the Jacobian is
p
(5) J= nat.(p-o.
II
i= 1

H we substitute from (3) and (4) into w[AI(ujjSij ), n] and multiply by (5), we
obtain as the joint density of {ali} and {rij}

(6)

Irij 11-(n-p -n IlP (a!n-l exp(_la'.Iu..)}

1i 2 /I II
rP (-n1 )
1 .
1=
1 2 1zn 1
01[1
U
,

since

(7)

where ru = 1. In the ith term of the product on the right-hand side of (6), let
aul(2uji) ui ; then the integra] of this term is

(8)

by definition of the gamma function (or by the fact that atil Uu has the
X2-density 'vith n degrees of freedom). Hence the density of rij is

fPGn)1 rlfl !(n-p-l)

(9)
fp(1n)

Tbeorem 7.6.1. If Xl"'" X N are independent, each with distribution

N[p., (uuStj)l then the density of the sample con-elation coefficients is given by
(9) where n =1 N - 1.
272 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRI BUTlON; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

7.7. THE INVERTED WISHART DISTRIBUTION AND BAYES

ESTIMATION OF THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

7.7.1. The Inverted Wishart Distribution

As indicated in Section 3.4.2, Bayes estimators are usually admissible. T!J.e
calculation of Bayes estimators is facilitated when the prior distributions of
the parameter is chosen conveniently. When there is a sufficient statistic,
there will exist a family of prior distributions for the parameter such that the
posterior distribution is a member of this family; such a family is calJed a
conjugate family of distributions. In Section 3.4.2 we saw that the normal
family of priors is conjugate to the normal family of distributions when the
covariance matrix is given. In this section we shall consider Bayesian estima-
tion of the covariance matrix and estimation of the mean vector and the
covariance matrix.

Theorem 7.7.l. If A has the distrihution W( I , m), then B = A -.1 has the
density
I"'I 11111 B I - !( /II +(J +I ) e - fIr 11' y- I
(1 )
2tmprp(im)

for B positive definite and 0 elsewhere, where 'V = I-I.

Proof By Theorem A4.6 of the Appendix, the Jacobian of the tIansfor-

mation A = B- 1 is IBI-< p+ 1). Substitution of B- 1 for A in (16) of Section 7.2
and multiplication by IBI-(p+l) yields 0). •

We shall call (1) the density of the inverted Wishart distributio'l with m
degrees of freedom t and denote the distribution by W- l( 'V, m) and the
density by w- I (BI 'V, m). We shall call'll the precision matrix or concentra-
tion matrix.

7.7.2. Bayes Estimation of the Covariance Matrix

The covariance matrix of a sample of size N from N(JL, I) has the distribu-
tion of (1/n)A, where A has the distribution W(I, n) and n = N - I. We
shall now show that if I is assigned an inverted Wishart distribution, then
the conditional distribution of I given A is an inverted Wishart distribution.
In other words, the family of inverted Wishart distributions for I is conju-
gate to the family of Wishart distributions.

tTbe definition of the number of degrees of freedom differs from that of Giri (1977), p. 104, and
Muirhead (1982), p. 113.
7,7 INVERTED WISHART DISTRIBUTION AND BAYES ESTIMATION 273

Theorem 7.7.2.If A has the distribution WeI, n) and I has the a priori
distribution W-I(W, m), then the conditional distribution of I is W-I(A +
W,n + m).

Proof The joint density of A and I is

IWI iml II- ~(n+m+p+ I )IAI1(n-p-l) e- ttr(A+'It)! I
(2)
2i (n+m)prp (.tn)r
1
(!..m'J
p 1

for A and I positive definite. The marginal density of A is the integral of (2)
over the set of I positive definite, Since the integral of (1) with respect to B
is 1 identically in W, the integral of (2) with respect to I is

rp[ ~ (n + m)] I'l"l ~m IAI1(n-p-IlIA + WI- 1(n+m)

(3)
rp( ~n )rpClm)
for A positive definite. The conditional density of I given A is the ratio of
(2) to (3), namely,
IA + WI~(n+mlII\ - ~(IJ l-/"+p+ll 1'- ftr('4+'ltl:l: J

(4)
2t(Il+ml P rJHn +m)]

Corollary 7.7.1. If nS has the distribution WeI, n) and I has the (l priori
dIStribution W- I(W, m), then the conditional distribution of I given S is
JV-I(nS + W, n + m).

Corol1ary 7.7.2. If nS has the distribution WeI, n), I has the a priori
distribution W- I (W , m), and the loss function is tr( D - I )G( D - I) H, where
G and H are positive definite, then the Bayes estimator for I is
1
(5) n m -p- 1 (nS + 'V).
+

Proof It follows from Section 3.4.2 that the Bayes estimator fm I is

tI(IIS). From Theorem 7,7.2 we see that I -I has the a posteriori distribu-
tion W[(nS + W)-I, n + m], The theorem results from the following lemma,
•
Lemma 7.7.1. If A has the distn'bution WeI, 12), then

(6) $A-1= 1 I-I,

n -p-l
274 COy ARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTJo )N; GENERALIZED YARIANa.

Proof. If C is a nonsingular matrix such that I = CC', then A has the

distribution of CBC', where B has the distribution W(I, n), and SA- I =
(C')-I(SB-I)C- 1 , By symmetry the diagonal elem~nts of SB-[ are the
same and the off-diagonal elements are the same; that is, SB-[ = kil +
k ~ 88 I. For every orthogonal matrix Q, QBQ' has the distribution W(I, n) and
hence S(QBQ')-I = QSB-IQ' = SB- 1 , Thus k2 = O. A diagonal element of
B-1 has the distribution of (Xn2_p+ 1 )-1, (See, e.g., the proof of Theorem
5.2.2,) Since S(Xn2 _p+1 )-1 =(n -p _1)-1, SB- 1 = (n -p -0- 1/. Then (6)
follows. •

We note that (n - p - l)A - [ = [en - p - 1)/(n - 1)]S-[ is an unbiased

estimator of the precision I - I.
If f.l is known, the unbiased estimator of I is (l/N)r.~=I(Xa - I-'-)(x a -
1-'-)" The above can be applied with n replaced by N. Note that if n (or N) is
large. (5) is approximately S.

Theorem 7.7.3. Let XI"",XN be observations from N(I-'-,I). Suppose I-'-

and I have the a priori density n(l-'-lv,(l/K)I) X w-I(IIW,m). Then the a
posteriori density of I-'- and I given i = (1/N)r.~=IXa, and S = (l/n)r.~= I(X a
- iXxa - i)' is

(7) 11(1-'-1 N ~ K (NX + Kv), N ~ KI)

·w- I (Ilw + nS + NN:K(i - v)(i- V)', N + m).
Proof. Since i and nS = A are a sufficient set of statistics, we can consider
the joint density of i, A, 1-'-, and I, which is
K~' N!PI WI !ml II- t(N+m+p+2 lIAI1(N-p-2 l
( 8)
2t(N+m+llp7Tprp[i(N-1)]rp(1m)

·exp{-HN(i- I-'-)'I-I(X- 1-'-) +trAI- 1

+ K ( I-'- - v) I-I ( I-'- - v) + tr '11 I-I] }.
I

The marginal density of i and A is the integral of (8) with respect to I-'- and
I. The exponclItial in (8) is - ~ times
( 9) ( N + K) I-'- I I - I I-'- - 2( NX + K v) I - I I-'-
+ Ni' I - Ii + K v I I - I V + tr( A + '11) I - I

=(N+K)[I-'-- N~K(NX+K~)rI-1II-'-- N~K(NX+KV)]

+ N~KK (i - v) I I-I ( i-v) + tr( A + '11) I - [ .
7.7 INVERTED WISHART DISTRIBUTION AND BAYES ESTIMATION 275

The integral of (8) with respect to j-L is

KW NWI WI !ml :II- ~(N+m+p+1 )IAI4(N-p-2)

(10)
(N + K)W2~(N+m)p1T1Prp[ H N - 1)] rp( ~m)

. exp { - ~ [ tr A I -I + NN:K ( i-v) 'I -I ( i-v) + tr WI -1 ] } .

In tum, the integral of (10) with respect to I is

(11) 1Ttvr~[-!(N-1)]rp(!m)(N+K)1P
·IAI !(N-p-2)1 Wllml 'I' + A + N:KK (i - v )(i - v)'1- 1(N+m).

The conditional density of j-L and I given i and A is the ratio of (8) to (11),
namely,

(N + K)WI II- ~(N+m+p+2 )1'1' + A + NN:K (i - v)( i-v ~'I.!(N+t'l)

(12)

'exp { - ~ [ ( N + K) [ j-L - N ~ K ( Hi + K v) r I -I [ j-L - N ~ K (Hi + K v) ]

+ tr [ 'I' + A + NN:K ( i-v) ( i-v) ,] I -I ] } .

Then (12) can be written as (7). •

Coronary 7.7.3. If XI" •• ' X N are observations from N(j-L, I), if j-L and I
have the a priori density n(j-Llv,(1/K)I]xw- I (I\W,m), and if the loss
function is (d - j-L)'](d - j-L) - tr(D - I)G(D - I)H, then the Bayes estima-
tors of j-L and I are
1
(13) N +K(Ni+Kv)
and

respectively.

The estimator of j-L is a weighted average of the sample mean i and the
a priori mean v. If N is large, the a priori mean has relatively little weight.
276 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

The estimator of I- is a weighted average of the sample covariances S, '1',

and a term deriving from the difference between the sample mean and the a
priori mean. If N is large, the estimator is close to the sample covariance
matrix.

Theorem 7.7.4. Ifxl, ... ,xN are observations from N(JL, I-) and if JL and
I- have the a priori density n[JLI 11, (1/K)I-] X w-I(I-1 '1', m), then the marginal
a posteriori density of JL given i and S is

(15)

where JL* is (13) and B is N + m - p - 1 time.'! (J 4).

Proof The exponent in (12) is - ~ times

(16)

Then the integral of (12) with respect to I- is

( 17)
1TWrp[ !(N + m)] IB + (N + K)(JL - JL* )(JL - JL* )'1 t(N+m+l) •

Since IB +xx'i = IBI(1 +x'B-1x) (Corollary A.3.I), (15) follows. •

The dem,ity (15) is the multivariate t-distribution with N -I- m + 1 - P

degrees of freedom. See Section 2.7.5, ExaIT'ples.

7.8. IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE COVARIANCE MATRIX

Just as the sample mean i can be improved on as an estimator of the

population mean JL when the loss function is quadratic, so can the sample
covariance S be improved on as an estimator of the population covariance I-
for certain loss functions. The loss function for estimation of the location
parameter JL was invariant with respect to translation (x -+ x + a, JL -+ JL + a),
and the risk of the sample mean (which is the unique unbiased function of
the sufficient statistic when I- is known) does not depend on the parameter
value. The natural group of transformations of covaridnce matrices is multi-
plication on the left by a nonsingular matrix and on the right by its transpose
7.8 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE COVARIANCE MATRIX 277

(x -+ ex,
S -+ CSC', I -+ CIC'). We consider two loss functions which arc
invariant with respect to such transformations.
One loss function is quad ratic:

(1)

where G is a positive definite matrix. The other is based on the form of the
lik.elihood function:

(2)
(See Lemma 3.2.2 and alternative proofs in Problems 3.4, 3.8, and 3.12.) Each
of these is 0 when G = I and is positive when G ¢ I. The second loss
function approaches 00 as G approaches a singular matrix or when one or
more elements (or one or more characteristic roots) of G approaches x. (See
proof of Lemma ~.2.2.) Each is invariant with respect to transformations
G* = CGC', I* = CIC'. We can see some properties of the loss fUllctions
from L/[, D) = Lf. [(d/i - 1)2 and L I ([, D) = L;= I(d ll - log d j , - n, where
D is diagonal. (By Theorem A.2.2 of the Appendix for arbitrary positive
definite I and symmetric G, there exists a nonsingular C such that CIC' = I
and CGC' = D.) If we let g = (gIl' . " , gPP' g12' ... , gp_ I.p)', s =
(su, ... ,Spp,S[2,""Sp_[,p)" fT=(u[[, ... 'Upp '0"12 ••••• 0"p-I.P)', and <1>=
S(s - fT )(s - fT)', then Lq(I G) is a constant multiple of (g- fT )''1>- [(g- fT).
(See Problem 7.33.)
The maximum likelihood estimator i and the unbiased estimator S are of
the form aA, where A has the distribution WeI, n) and n = N - 1.

Theorem 7.8.1. The quadratic risk of aA. is minimized at a = 1 /(n + p + 1).

and its value is p( p + 1)/ (n + p + 1). The likelihood n'sk of aA is minimized at
a = l/n (i.e., aA = S), and its value of p log n - Lf= [Slog XII2+1_"

Proof. By the invariance of the loss function

2
= $/ tr ( aA. * -[)

= $/ (a
2
.~
',J=[
a7/ - 2a t a~, + pl
,=[

= a2 [(2n + n 2 ) p + np( p - 1)] - 2allp + p

= P[ n( n + p + 1) a2 - 2na + 1] .
278 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

which has its minimum at a = l/(n + p + 1). Similarly

(4) tfl:L/(I,aA) = (tIL/(/,aA*)

= cF1{atrA* -logIA*I-ploga-p}

= p[na - log a - 1] - J'I 10g1A*1 ,

which is minimized at a = lin. •

Although the minimum risk of the estimator of the form aA is constant for
its lo.'Is function, the estimator is not minimax. We shall now consider
estimators G(A) such that

(5) G(HAR') = HG(A)H'

for lower triangular matrices H. The two loss functions are invariant with
respect to transf(Hmations G* = HGH', I* = HIH'.
Let A = 1 and H be the diagonal matrix D, with -1 as the ith diagonal
element and 1 as each other diagonal element. Then HAR' = I, and the
i, jth component of (5) is

(6) j+i.

Hence, g,/l) = 0, i "* j, and G(l) is diagonal, say D. Since A = TT' for T
lower triangular, we have

(7) G(A) =G(TlT')

= TG(l)T'
=TDT' ,

where D is a diagonal matrix not depending on A. We note in passing that if

(5) holds for all nonsingular H, then D = al for some a. (H can be taken as
a permutation matrix.)
If I = KJ(', where K is lower triangular, then

(8)

c8'~L[I,G(A)] = jL[I,G(A)]C(p,n)III-~nIAIHn-p-l)e-t!rrlAdA

= jL[KK',G(A)]C(p,n)IKJ('I-tnIAIHn-P-l)
7.8 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE COVARIANCE MATRIX 279

= $JL[KK'.KG(A*)K']

= $JL[I.G(A*)]

by invariance of the loss function. The risk does not depend on I.

For the quadratic loss function we calculate

(9) $JLq{I.G(A)] = cB'JLq[I,TDT']

$J tr (TDT' - 1)2

= ,"'J tr(TDT'TDT' - 2TDT' + I)

p p
= dfJ L t'Jd/klkldlt'l - 2 $J L t~dJ + p.
i,},k,l-l ,,)"'1

The expectations can be evaluated by using the fact that the (nonzero)
elements of T are independent, tl~ has the x2-distribution with n + 1 - £
degrees of freedom, and tii' £ > }, has the distribution N(O,I). Then

(10)

(11) It, = (n + p - 2£ + 1) (n + p - 2i + 3),

fij=n+p-2j+l, i <},

f;=n+p+2i+l,

and d = (d t ••.•• dpY. Since d' Fd = $ tr (TDT'),! > 0, F is positive definite

and (10) has a unique minimum. It is attained at d = F-'j. and the minimum
is p - j'F-lj.

Theorem 7.8.2. With respect to the quadratic loss function the best estimator
invariant with respect to linear transformations I ~ H'IH', A ~ HAH', where
H is lower triangular, is G(A) = TDT', where'D is the diagonal matrix whose
diagonal elements compose d F-lj, F andjare defined by (11), and A = IT'
with T lower triangular.
280 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

Since d = F- If is not proportional to e = (1, ... ,1)', that is, Fe is not

proportional to f (see Problem 7.28), this estimator has a smaller (quadratic)
loss than any estimator of the form aA. (which is the only type of estimator
invariant under the full linear group). Kiefer (1957) showed that if an
estimator is minimax in the class of estimators invariant with respect to a
group of transformations satisfying certain conditions,t then it IS minimax
with respect to all estimators. In this problem the group of trianr,ular linear
transformations satisfies the conditions, while the group of all linear transfor-
mations does not.
The definition of this estimator depends on the coordinate system and on
the numbering of the coordinates. These properties are intuitively unappeal-
mg.

Theorem 7.8.3. The estimator G(A) defined in Theorem 7.8.2 is minimax

with respect to the quadratic loss function.

In the case of p = 2
~

(12)
d = (n+lr-(n-l) d = (~ + 1)( n + 2) .
I ~
(n + 1r( n + 3) - (n - 1)
2
r
(n + 1 (n + 3) - (n - 1)

The risk is
2
2 + Sn + 4
3n
(13)
n + 5n 2 + 6n + 4 .
3

The difference between the risks of the best estimator aA. and the best
estimator TDT' is

6 6n 2 + !On + 8 2n(n -1)

(14)
n + 3 - n 3 + 5n 2 + 6n + 4 (n + 3)( n 3 + 5n 2 + 6n + 4) .

The difference is 515 for n = 2 (relative to ~), and 417 for n = 3 (rela~ive to 1);
it is of the order 2/n 2 ; the improvement due to using the estimator TDT' is
not great, at least for p = 2.
For the likelihood loss function we calculate

(15) $rL{[I,G(A)]
= @"rL{[I, TDT']
= cC'r[tr TDT' -logl TDT'I - p]

tTbe essential condition is that the group is sOlvable. See Kiefer (1966) and Kudo (1955).
7.8 IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF THE COVARIANCE MATRIX 281

p p 1 p
= @1 [ i.~ I t,~ dJ - i~ log t,~ -,~ log d, - P

p p p
= ~ (n + p - 2j + 1) d) - E log d) - E cf log x,;+ 1_) - p.
j~1 j=1 J=I

The minimum of (15) occurs at dJ = 1/(n + p - 2j + 1), j = 1, ... , p.

Theorem 7.8.4. With respect to the likelihood loss function, the best estima-
tor invariant with respect to linear transformations I -+ HI H', A -+ HAH',
where H is lower triangular, is G(A) = TDT', where the jtlz diagonal elemellf of
the diagonal matrix D is 1/(n + p - 2j + 1), j = 1, ... , p, and A = IT', with T
lower triangular. The minimum risk is

p p
(16) 6'I,L[I,G(A)] = E log(n +p - 2j + I} - E J.' log X,;+l-J'
j=l J=l

Theorem 7.8.5. The estimalor G(A) defined in Theorem 7.8.4 is mblimax

with respect to the likelihood losS' function.

James and Stein (1961) gave this estimator. Note that the reciprocals of
the weights 1/(rl + p - 0, 1/(n + p - 3), ... . 1/(n - p + 1) are symmetrically
distributed about the reciprocal of lin.
If p = 2,

(17) G(A) =
1
n + 1A + 0
(0 ~
o 1
f...
IAI
a '
-

n -1
2 II

(18) SG(A) = n + 1 1+
n
fl
2 (0
+1 0

The difference between the risks of the best estimator aA and the best
estimator TDT' is

(19) p log n - f:
J=l
log(n + p - 2j + 1) = - .£ IOg(
J:l
1+ p - ~j + I ).
282 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

If P = 1. the improvement is

(20) -IOg( 1 + ! )- 10g( 1 - ~)= -IOg( 1 - :2 )

1 1 1
=-
2
+ -4 + - +
6
...
n 2n 3n '

which is 0.288 for n = 2, 0.118 for n = 3,0.065 for n = 4, etc. The risk (19) is
O(l/n~) for any p. (See Problem 7.31.)
An obvious disadvantage of these estimators is that they depend on the
coordinate system. Let P, be the ith permutatioll matrix, i = 1, ... , pI, and iet
P,AP; = Ti~" where T; is lower triangular and tj) > 0, j = 1, ... , p. Then a
randomized estimator that does not depend on the numbering of coordinates
is to let the estimator be P,'TjDT,'P, with probability l/p!; this estimator has
the same risk as the estimaLor for the original numbering of coordinates.
Since the loss functions are convex, (l/p!)LjP,'T,DT/Pj will have at least as
good a risk function; in this case the risk will depend on I.
Haff (1980) has shown that G(A) = [l/(n + p + 1)](A + 'YuC),
where y is constant, 0;5; 'Y;5; 2(p - l)/(n - p + 3), u = l/tr(A -IC) and C is
an arbitrary positive definite matrix, has a smaller quadratic risk than
[J /(11 + P + I )]A. The estimator G(A) = Cl/n)[A + ut(u)C], where t(u) is an
absolutely continuous, nonincreasing function, 0;5; t(u);5; 2(p - l)/n, has a
smaller likelihood risk than S.

7.9. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

7.9.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Consider xp •.. , Xv obseIVations on a random vector X with density

(I)

Let A = L~_l(xn = iXx" - i)', n = N - 1, S = (l/n)A. Then S ~ I as

N --> t"o. The limiting normal distribution of IN vec(S - I) was given in
Theorem 3.6.2.
The lower triangular matrix T, satisfying A = IT', was used in Section 7.2
in deriving the distribution of A and hence of S. Define the lower triangular
matrix T by S= TT', t" ~O, i= 1, ... ,p. Then T= (l/Vn)T. If I =1, then
7.9 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 283

S~I and T~/, /N(S-I) and /N(T-I) have limiting normal distribu-
tions, and

(2) IN(S -I) = /N(T-/) + /N(T-/)' + Opel).

That is, IN(Sjj -1) = 2/N(t;, -1) + 0/1), and /Ns,} = INt,) + 0/1), i > j.
When I = I, the set /N(SII -1), ... , /N(spp -1) and the set /Ns;j, i > j,
are asymptotically independent; /N s12' ... , /N Sp- I, P are mutually asymptot-
ically independent, each with variance 1 + K; the limiting variance of
IN (Sii - 1) is 3K + 2; and the limiting covariance of /N (Sjj - 1) and /N (Sjj
'*
- 1), i j, is K.

Theorem 7.9.1. If I = Ip, the limiting distribution of IN (1' -Ip) is normal

with mean O. The variance of a diagvnal element is (3 K + 2) /4; the covariance of
two diagonal elements is K / 4; the variance of an off-diagonal element is K + l;
the off-diagonal elements are uncomdated and are uncomdated with the diagonal
elements.

Let X= v + CY, where Y has the density g(y'y), A = CC', and I = S(X
-v)(X-v)' =(SR 2 /p)A=rr', and C and r are lower triangular. Let S
-- p
be the sample covariance of a sample of Non X. Let S = IT'. Then S - I,
T~ r, and

(3) /N(S - I) = IN(T- r)r' + r/N(t- r)' + Opel).

The limiting distribution of IT (1' - r) is normal, and the covariance can be
calculated from (3) and the covariances of the elements of /N (S - I). Since
the primary interest in T is to find the distribution of S, we do not pursue
this further here.

7.9.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrb~ Distributions

Let X (N X p) have the density

(4) ICI-Ng[ C- I (X - ENV')'( X - ENv')( C') -I]

based on the left spherical density g(Y'Y).

Theorem 7.9.2. Define T= (t,) by Y'Y= IT', t;j= 0, i <j, and t,; ~ O. If
the density of Y is g(Y'Y), then the density of Tis
284 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

Proof. Let f= (vl, ••• ,vp )' Define Wi and Wi' recursively by WI = VI' U I =
w';lIwlll,

( 6)

and Uj = w'/Ilwill. Then wiw} = 0, uiu) = 0, i "*

j, and U~U, = 1. Conditional on
VI' •••• Vj_ I (that is, WI"'" Wi-I)' let Q, be an orthogonal m.itrix with
U'I' ••• , uj -1 as the first i - 1 rows; that is,

(7)
(See Lemma AA.2.) Define

(8) z, = Q"v·=
t,,'_1
z* I

This transformation of V, is linear and has Jacobian 1. The vector zi has

N + 1 - i components. Note that IIzj 112 = IIw,11 2 ,
1- I I-I
(9) Vi = E t,}U} + Wj = E t,)u j + Qj Izj ,
j-=I i=1
i-I i
( 10) .J
IIi Vi -
- ~ 2
i-.J t i) + Z,* Zj* --
I ~
i-.J t2')'
j= I j= 1

j
( 11) I'; 1', = E t)/.. t ,k , j<i.
k=1

The transformation from f= (vp ...• v p ) to Zl' ••• ,zp has JacoDian 1.
To obtain the density of T convert zi to polar coordinates and integrate
with respect to the angular coordinates. (See Section 2.7.1.) •

The ahove proof follows the lines of the proof of (6) in Section 7.2, but
does not use information about the normal distribution, such as t,~ 4. X~+I-j'
See also Fang and Zhang (1990), Theorem 3.4.1.
Let C be a lower triangular matrix such that A = CC'. Define X = fC'.

Theorem 7.9.3. If X (N X p) has the density

(12) lCI-Ng[C-1X'X(C')-I],
PROBLEMs
285

then the lower triangular matrix T* satisfying X' X = T* T*' and til ~ 0 has the
density

(13)

Let A =X'X= T*T*'.

Theorem 7.9.4. If X has the density (12), then A = X' X has the density

(14)

The class of densities g(tr Y'V) is a subclass of densities g(yly). Let

X = I:; N V' + YC'. Then the density of X is

(15)

A stochastic representatio n of X is vec X 4: R( C ® IN) vec U + v ® I:; N' Theo~

rems 7.9.3 and 7.9.4 can be specialized to this form. Then Theorem 3.6.5
holds.

Theorem 7.9.5. Let X have the density (12) where A is diagonal. Let
S (N - 1)-1 (X - € Ni')'(X - I:; Ni') and R = (diag S)- ~S(diag S)-~. Then
the density of R is (9) of Section 7.6.

PROBLEMS

~I.l. (Sec. 7.2) A transformation from rectangular to polar coordinates is

YI = w sin Oil

Y2 = wcos 01 sin ° 2,

Y3 = wcos 01 cos 02 sin 03'

Yn-I = w cos 01 cos 02 ... cos 0,1-2 sin 011-1'

Yn = W cos 01 cos 02 ... cos 0n-2 cos On-I'

where - 111" < 0, :$; 111", i = 1, ... , n - 2, -11" < 0"-1 .:::; 1T', and 0.:::;
w <00.
286 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

(a) Prove w 2
so forth.]
(b) Show that the Jacobian is w ll - J COS,,-2 (JI COSIl- 3 (J2 ... cos 811 - [Hint: Prove
2,

COS 81 0 0 0

I (/(YI .... ·Yn)

(7(A J.... , (J/I_p w )
\
0 cos (J2 0 0

0 0 cos (JII_ J 0
wsin 9\ w sin 9, w sin (J"_I 1

W x x x
0 wcos 9 1 X X

0 0 w cos (JJ cos (J,,_2 X

0 0 0 cos (Jt cos (J,,-l

where x denotes elements whose explicit values are not needed.]

7.2. (Sec. 7.2) Prove that

(Him: Let cos:! fJ u, and use the definition of B( p, q).]

7.3. (Sec. 7.2) Use Problems 7.1 and 7.2 to prove that the surface area of a sphere of
unit radius in n dimensions is

21T111
C(n) = f( ~n) .

7.4. tSec. 7.2) Use Problems 7.\, 7.2, and 7.3 to prove that if the density of
y' = Y\, ... , y,,)is f(y' y), then the density of u = y' y is ~C(n)f(u)u I,I-I.

7.5. (Sec. 7.2) X 2·distribution. Use Problem 7.4 to show that if Yh'''' Yn are
independently distributed, each according to N(O,1), then U = r:~", I Y~ has the
density U~II-\ e-!u /(2~nf(~n)], which is the x 2 -density with n degrees of
freedom.

7.6. (Sec. 7.2) Use (9) of Section 7.6 to derive the distribution of A.

7.7. (Sec. 7.2) Use the proof of Theorem 7.2.1 to demonstrate Pr{IAI = O} = O.
PROBlEMs
287

7.8. (Sec, 7.2) Independence of estimators of the parameters of the complex normal
distribution Let ZI" .. ' z,v be N observations from the complex normal distribu-
tion with mean () and covariance matrix P. (See Problem 2.64.) Show that Z
and A = Z~~I(Za - Z)(Za - Z)* are independently distributed, and show that
A has the distribution of L~= I Wa Wa*' where WI" .. ' Wn are independently
distributed, each according to the complex normal distribution with mean (t and
covariance matrix P.

7.9. (Sec, 7.2) The complex Wishart distribution. Let WI"'" Wn be independently
distributed, each according to the complex normal distribution with mean 0 and
covariance matrix P. (See Problem 2.64.) Show that the density of B =
L~= I Wa Wa* is

7.10. (Sec. 7.3) Find the characteristic function of A from WeI, n). [Hint: From
fw(AI I, n)dA =.,
one derives

as an identity in 4J.} Note that comparison of this result with that of Section
7.3.1 is a proof of the Wishart distribution.

7.11. (Sec. 7.3.2) Prove Theorem 7.3.2 by use of characteristic fUnctions.

7.12. (Sec, 7.3.1) Find the first two moments of the elements of A by differentiating
the characteristic function (11).

"'.13. (Sec. 7.3) Let Zl' ... ' Z" be independently distributed, each according to
N(O,1). Let W= L~.f3=lbaf3ZaZ~. Prove that if a'Wa = X~ for all a such that
a'a = 1, then W is distributed according to WO, m). [Hint: Use the characteris-
tic function of a'Wa.}

7.14. (Sec. 7.4) Let Xu be an observation from N()3z,. . ,I), a= I, ... , N, where za is
a scalar. Let b= LaZaXa/raz~. Use Theorem 7.4.1 to show that LaXax'a-
bb'L",Z~ and bb' are independent.

7.15. (Sec. 7.4) Show that

2 2 ) II
t! ( XN-I XN-2 = t! (X2N.-4/
2 4 ) II , h <:! 0,

by use of the duplication formula for the gamma function; X~-I and X~-2 are
independent. Hence show that the distribution of X~-I X~-? is the distribution
of XiN-4/4. -
288 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENE RAU ZED VARIANCE

7.16. (Sec. 7.4) Verify that Theorem 7.4.1 follows from Lemma 7.4.1. [Hint: Prove
that Qj having the distribution WeI, rl) implies the existence of (6) where I is
of order r, and that the independence of the Q/s implies that the I's in (6) do
not overlap.]

7.17. (Sec. 7.5) Find GIAlh directly from W(1;.n). [Hint: The fact that

jw(AII,n)dA:;. I
shows

as zn identity in n.]

7.18. (Sec. 7.5) Consider the confidence region for fL given by

N(X-"*)'S-l(f-"*).s
.- .- (N-l)PF
N - P p. N-p (e)·
,

where x and S are based on a sample of N from N(fL, I). Find the expected
value of the volume of the confidence region.

7.19. (Sec. 7.6) Prove that if 1; =I, the joint density of ri/,p' i, j = 1, ... , p - 1, and
r Jp , ... ,rp _I.I' is

r p - I [12 Cft -1)]IR1Lol t(n-p-l)

--:----:;;..,--=-.,..,-~...,-.-=./...,..-_--;:- n
p-l r( '12 n ) (1 _ 2) ~ (17 - 3)
17'(P-I)(p-2)!4nr_-llr[~(n-i)] 1=1 17't rB(n-l)] rip ,

where R u .p (rlj'p)' [Hint: rii'p = (rij - r/prjp)/( VI - ri~ VI - rJ~ ) and Irljl ='

I VI - rl~ VI - rj~rif.pl. Use (9).]

7.20. (Sec. 7.6) Prove that the joint density of r12.3,. .... p,rl3.4•...• p,r23.4.".,p .... ,
rip"'" rp - 1• p is

r{ Hn - (p - 2)]} (1- 2 )tln-(p+lll

17'~r{Hn- (p-l)]) r 12·3•• ",p

.n 2
r{ Hn - (p - 3)]} (1 _ r2
lr{ 1[ ( 2)]}
)~(n-p)
1~ I 17'2 '2 n - p- i3·4 ..... p

2
... Pn- r[ ~(n -1)] (1- 2 )!(n-4)
i-I 17' r I'2(n -
2I I
2) ] rl p-I·p
.

.n1'-1
r (1'in ) (1 _ 2 )i(n-31
i=117'trI!cn-l)] r,p .

[Hint: Use the result of Problem 7.19 inductivity.}

PROBlEMs
289

7.21. (Sec. 7.6) Prove (without the use of Problem 7.20) that if :I = 1, then
rip"'" r p _ I, p are independently distributed. [Hint: rip = a IP /(";;;:; va
pp ). Prove
that the pairs (alp, all)'" " (a p _ l . p, ap-l. p _ l ) are independent when
(Zip"", Z"P) are fixed, and note from Section 4.2,1 that the marginal distribu-
tion of rip' conditional on zap' does not depend on zap']

7.22. (Sec. 7.6) Prove (without the use of Problems 7.19 and 7.20) that if 1: = I. then
the set r ll" ... , r ll _ I, p is independent of the set rif'{" i. j = l. .... " _. l. l Hint:
From Seetion 4.3.2 a pp ' and (alP) are indepelldent or (£lIn,)' Prov..: thaI
aIJII,(ail)' and aii' i = 1, .... P - 1, arc independent of (rl , ) hy proving that
a/j.p are independent of (ri;-p)' See Problem 4.21.]

7.23. (Sec. 7.6) Prove the conclusion of Problem 7.20 by using Problems 7.21 and
7.22.

7.24. (Sec. 7.6) Reverse the steps in Problem 7.20 to derive (9) of Section 7.6.

7.25. (Sec. 7.6) Show that when p = 3 and 1: is diagonal r lJ , r 13 , r13 are not
mutually independent.

7.26. (Sec. 7.6) Show that when :I is diagonal the set rlJ are pairwise independent.

7.27. (Sec. 7.7) Multivariate t-distribution. Let y and u be independently distributed

according to N(O,:I) and the Xn2-distribution, respectively, and let Vn/uy =x-
.....
(a) Show that the density of x is

rIhn+p)]

(b) Show that tlx = .... and

7.28. (Sec. 7.8) Prove that Fe is not proportional to f by calculating FE.

7.29. (Sec. 7.8) Prove for p = 2

7.30. (Sec. 7.8) Verify (17) and ([8). [Hint: To verify (18) let l: = KK', A ~I KA.* K',
and A* = T*T*, where K and T* are lower triangular.]
290 COVARIANCE MATRIX DISTRIBUTION; GENERALIZED VARIANCE

7.31. (Sec. 7.tO Prove for opLimal D

P even,

::: - ~(p-I)
E log [ 1 ~ (P~2i+l)2]
n ' P odd.
1= I

7.32. (Sec. 7.8) Prove L/I., G) and L,(I., G) are invariant with respect to transfor-
mations G* := CGC'. I.* := CI.C' for C nonsingular.

7.33. (Sec. 7.8) Prove L,,(I..G) is <t mUltiple of (g~ (1)IcJ>-I(g - (1). Hint: Trans·
form so 1 = I. Then show

<fl = _~
II
(210 0) I'

7.34. (Sec. 7.8) Verify (II).

7.35. L~l the den~itv

of Y he f(y) = K for y' y 5,. P + 2 and 0 elsewhere. Prove that
• I
K= r( ~ + J)/[(p + 2}TI }I", and show that (~'Y = 0 and @YY' = I.

7.36. (Sec. 7.2) Dirichlet distn·butiorI. Let Y1, ••• , Y,n be independently distributed as
x:'.-variables with Pl •... ' Pm degrees of freedom, respectively. Define Zj =
YjL~'~I~' i= I .... ,m. Show that the density I)f ZI,,,,,Zm-1 is

fOL7~IPI) Z~PI-l "'Z~p,"-l Z e:=1~ m;'l

n ,!1 1 f( lp.)
1= :!,
1 m' m ' - Zj'
i=1

for z, ~ 0, i = 1, .... m.

7.37. (Sec. 7.5) Show that if X~-I and X~-2 are independently distributed, then
x~ I x~ ~ is distrihuted as (X?'V ~ f'- /4. [Hint: In the joint density of x = X~-l
and S = x.~'-~ substitute z := 2!J..Y. X == x. and expl<.!ss the marginal density of Z
a~ zX. lt(z). where h(z) is an integral with respect to x. Find h'(z), and solve
l

Ihl' dilTt'n':lllial l'qUiILioll. Sec Sriva~tavH and Khatri (1979). ChapLer 3.]
CHAPTER 8

Testing the General Linear

Hypothesis; Multivariate
Analysis of Variance

8.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we generalize the univariate least squares theory (i.e., regres-
sion analysIs) and the analysis of variance to vector variates. The algebra of
the multivariate case is essentially the same as that of the univariate case.
This leads to distribution theory that is analogous to that of the univariate
case and to test criteria that are analogs of F-statistics. In fact, given a
univariate test, we shall be able to write down immediately a corresponding
multivariate test. Since the analysis of variance b~sed on the model of fixed
effects can be obtained from least squares theory, we obtain directly a theory
of multivariate analysis of variance. However, in the multivariate case there is
more latitude in the choice of tests of significance.
In univariate least squares we consider scalar dependent variates x I' •. " X N
drawn from popUlations with expected values I3'ZI"'" I3'ZN' respectively,
where 13 is a column vector of q components and each of the zrr is a column
vector of q known components. Under the assumption that the variances in
the populations arc the same, the least squares estimator of 13' is

(1 ) b
l
=( fXaZ~)( £Z<>Z~)-l
<>=1 <>=1

An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

291
292 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

If the populations are normal, the vector is the maximum likelihood estima-
tor of ~. The unbiased estimator of the common variance a 2 is
N
(2) S2= L (x a -b'zQ)2/(N-q),
a=l

and under the assumption of normality, the maximum likelihood estimator of

a 2 is 0- 2 = (N - q)~,z /N.
In the multivariate case xa is a vector, W is replaced by a matrix 13, and
a 2 is replaced by a covariance matrix ~. The estimators of 13 and ~, given
in Section 8.2, are matric analogs of (1) and (2).
To test a hypothesis concerning ~, say the hYpothesis ~ = 0, we use an
F-test. A criterion equivalent to the F-ratio is

1 0- 2
(3)
[q/(N-q)]F+ 1 = 0-02 '

where 0-02 is the maximum likelihood estimator of a 2 under the null

hypothesis. We shall find that the likelihood ratio criterion for the corre-
sponding multivariate hypothesis, say 13 = 0, is the above with the variances
replaced by generalized variances. The distribution of the likelihood ratic
criterion under the null hypothesis is characterized, the moments are found,
and some specific distributions obtained. Satisfactory approximations are
given as well as tables of significance points (Appendix B).
The hypothesis testing problem is invariant under several groups of linear
transformations. Other invariant criteria are treated, including the
Lawley-Hotelling trace, the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace, and the Roy maxi-
mum root criteria. Some comparison of power is made.
Confidence regions or simultaneous confidence intervals for elements of 13
can be based on the likelihood ratio test, the Lawley-Hotelling trace test,
and the Roy maximum root test. Procedures are given explicitly for several
problems of the analysis of variance. Optimal properties of admissibility,
unbiasedness, and monotonicity of power functions arr~ studied. Finally, the
theory and methods are extended to elliptically contoured distributions.

8.2. ESTIMATORS OF PARAMETERS IN MULTIVARIATE

UNEAR REGRESSION

8.2.1. Maximum Ukelihood Estimators; Least Squares Estimators

Suppose X l " " , X N are a set of N independent observations, xa being drawn
from N(Pz a , I). Ordinarily the vectors Za (with q components) are known
8.2 ESTIMATORS OF PARAMETERS IN LINEAR REGRESSION 293

vectors, and the p X P matrix E and the p X q matrix 13 are unknown. We

assume N;;:: p + q and the rank of

(1)

is q. We shall e~timate I and P by the method of maximum likelihood. The

likelihood function is

In (2) the elements of 1* amI 13* are indeterminates. The method of

maximum likelihood specifies the estimators of I and 13 based on the given
sample xl'zl',,,,XN,ZN as the I* and 13* that maximize (2). It is com'e-
nient to use the following lemma.

Lemma 8.2.1. Let

(3)

Then for any p Xq rna trix F

N N
(4.) ~ (xa-Fz,,)(xa-Fz a ), = ~ (x,,-Bza)(x,,-Bz,,)'
a=1 a=1

N
+(B - F) ~ Z a Z~ ( B - F) , .
a=l

Proof. The left-hand side of (4) is

N
(5) ~ [(Xa-Bza) +(B-F)za][(xa-Bz a ) +(B-F)za]',
a=1

which is equal to the right-hand side of (4) because

N
(6) ~ Za(Xa - BZa)' = 0
a=1

by virtue of (3). •
294 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Th\.:.' exponential in L is ~ ~ times

(7)
N N
tr~*-I L (.l' .. -ffz,,)(x.r-P*zu)'=tr~*-l L (xa-Bza)(xa-Bza)'
,,=1 a=1

+ tr I *- 1 (B - p* ) A ( B - 13*)' ,
where

(8)

The likelihood is maximized with respect to 13' by minimizing the last term
in (7).

Lemma 8.2.2. If A and G are posicive definite, trFAF'G >0 for F *" O.
Proof Let A = HH', G = KK'. Then

(9) tr FAF'G = tr FHH'F'KJ(' = tr K'FHH'F'K

= tr (](' FH)(](' FH)' > 0

for F *" 0 because then ](' FH *" 0 since Hand ]( are nonsingular. •

It follows from (7) and the lemma that L is maximized with respect to p*
by 13* = B, that is.

(I U)
where

(II )

Then by Lemma 3.2.2, L is maximized with respect to ~* at

A 1 N A) A
(12) ~= N L (Xa- t3z a (Xa- t3 za )'·
(t = I

This is the multivariate analog of cJ 2 =(N-q)s2/N defined by (2) of

Section 8.1.

Theorem 8.2.1. If XQ is an observationfrom N(f;5 z a' ~), a = 1, ... ,N, with

(z I" " . Z,\ ) of rank q, the maximum likelihood estimator of 13 is given by (10),
where C = L"X" z;, and A = LuZ"z;,. The maximum likelihood estimatol' of I
is given by (12).
0 .... L."H!'v1AiUK~ Ur PA.K.AMJ::.IJ::.1{S IN LINEAR REGRESSION 295

A useful algebraic result follows from (12) and (4) with F = 0:

N N
(13) Nt = I: xax~ - PAP' I: xax~ - CA IC'.
a=1 a-I

Now let us consider a geometric interpretation of the estimation proce-

dure. Let the ith row of (x I" ., x N) be xi (with N components) and the ith
row of (.'1"'" XN) be zi (with N components). Then L.) ~j)zj, being a linear
combination of the vectors xi, ... , x:. is a vector in the q-space spanned by
xi t •• • , x; t and is in fact, of all such vectors, the one near~st to xi; hence, it
is the projection of xi on the q-space. Thus xi L.j f3ijXj is the vector
orthogonal to the q-space going from the projection of xi on the q-space to
xi. Translate this vector so that one endpoint is at the origin. Then the set of
p vectors xi - Ej ~ljXj, . .. 'AX; - Ej ~pjxi !s a set of vectors emanating from
r
the origin. NUii = (xi - L.) {3,jzj )(xi - L.j {3,jz't is the square "of the length
of the ith such vector, and NUij = (xi - L.h {3,hZ% )(x: - L.g /3J g zi), is the
product of the length of the ith vector, the length of the jth vector, and the
cosine of the angle between them.
The equations defining the maximum likelihood estimator of 13, namely,
AB' = C', consist of p sets of q linear equations in q unknowns. Each set
can be solved by the method of pivotal condensation or successive elimina-
tion (Section A.5 of the Appendix). The forward solutions are the same
(except the right-hand sides) for all sets. Use of (13) to compute Nt involves
an efficient computation of PAP',
Let Xu = (x la ,··., xpa )', B = (hl"'" hp)l, and 13 = (~l' ... , ~p)l. Then
JJ'x ia = ~:za' and hi is the least squares estimator of ~,. If G is a positive
definite matrix, then tr G L.~==I(xa - FZa)(xa FZa)1 is minimized by F = B.
This is another sense in whic h B is the least squares estimator.

8.2.2. Distribution of P and t

N ow let us find the joint distribution of ~,g (i = 1, ... , p, g 1, ... , q). The
joint distribution is normal since the ~ig are linear combinations of the X ia •
From (10) we see that

N
(14) JJ'P = JJ' I: Xaz~A-1
a=1

N
= I: PZaz~A -I = PAA- 1
a=1

=13·
296 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MAN OVA

Thus Pis an unbiased estimator of p. The covariance between ~: and ~~.,

two rows of ~ , is

(15)
N N
~(~/- (3/)(~) - (3;)' =A- I $ L (X,a - ($"Xra)za L (X/y- (,s"X)y)Z;A-1
~=I y=1

N
=A-
I
L cff(Xja- c,fXja)(X/y- 0'Xjy)zaZ~A-1
a,y= I
N
= A -I ~
i..J
~
uay 0;) za Zy
, A-I
(x. y= I

To summarize, the vector of pq components (~'1' ... ' ~~)' = vec is nor~ P'
mally distributed with mean ((3'1 •... ' (3~)' = vec t3' and covariance matrix

0"1l
A-I 0"12
A-I O"lp
A-I

0"21
A-I 0"22
A-I 0"2p
A-I
(16)

A-I A-I A-I

O"p I O"p2 O"pp

The matrix (16) is thc KroncL.:kcr (or dircct) produL.:t of the matrices I and
A- I, denoted by I ® A - I.

From Theorem 4.3.3 it follows that N i = L~ = I Xu x~ - is dis- PAP'

tributed according to W('I, N - q). From this we see that an unbiased
esthnator of I is S = [N I(N - q)]i.

Theorem 8.2.2. The maximum likelihcod estimator P

based on a sec of N
observations, the ath from N(pza' I). is nonnally distributed with mean 13, and
the covarance matrix of the ith and jt hA roWS ofP i.: 0",) A -I, where A = La ZaZ~.
The maximum likelihood estimator 'I multiplied by N is independently dis~
tributed according to W('I, N - q), where q is the number of components of Z a.
8.2 ESTIMATORS OF PARAMETERS IN LINEAR REGRESSION 297

The density then can be written [by virtue of (4)]

(17)

This proves the following:

Corollary 8.2.1. ~ and i form a sufficient set of statistics for 13 and I,

A useful theorem is the following.

'fheorem 8.2.3. Let Xa he distrihuted according to N(J3z", I), a = 1, ... , N,

and suppose XI"'" X N are independent.

(a) If Wa = HZa and r= J3H- I, thell X" is distributed according to

N(rwa , I).
(b) The maximum likelihood estimator of r based on observations x" 011 X"'
t
a = 1, ... ,N, is = ~H- I, where ~ is the maximum likelihood estima-
tor of 13·
(c) to:::awaw~)t' = PAP',
where A = L()Z()Z~~ and the f!!a.:lmUm likeli-
hpoq estimator of NI is Nt = L,.,X,., x~ - r(Law,.,w~ )r' = L" x"x:,-
J3AJ3' .
(d) t and i are independently distributed.
(e) t is normally distributed with mean r and the covan'ance matrix of the
ith and jth rows of t
is er,/HAH')-l = er,/H' -IA -I H··I.

The proof is left to the reader.

An estimator F is a linear estimator of {3,~ if F = L~'= 1f~ xc>' It is a lillear
unbiased estimator of (3ig if

N N N p q

lIB) {3,g = It F = (t L f~xa = L f~J3zu = L L L ~cr {3,I, Z"',

,y=1 n~1 ,.,=1 )=1//=1

is an identity in 13, that is, if

N
(19) L f;aZha = 1, j=i, It=g,
a=1

= 0, otherwise.

A linear unbiased estimator is best if it has minimum variance over all linear
unbiased estimators; that is, if (1;'(F - (3,g)~ ~ t'(G - {3,gf!. for G = L:~= I g~ xa
and $0 = {3lg'
298 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Theorem 8.2.4. The least squares estimator is the best linear unbiased
estimator of {3,g.

Proof LetA ~/g = L.~=I L.j=lf;ux)u be an arbitrary unbiased estimator of

{3,~, and let (3,g= L.~=lL.t'lx,uzhuahg be the least squares estimator, where
A::::L.~=lzuz~. Then

Because ~/g and ~/g are unbiased, ~/g-{3,g=L.~=lL.j=lf;uu)u' ~,g-{3,g=

L.~=lL.r,=lurazlruahg, and

(21)

where Drr = 1 and D,) = 0, i ¢ j. Then

=0.

8.3. LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERIA FOR TESTING LINEAR

HYPOTHESES ABOUT REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS

8.3.1.. Likelihood Ratio Criteria

Suppose we partition

(1)
tU LlKJ::LlHOOD RATIO CRITERIA FOR REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 299

SO that 131 has ql columns and 132 has q2 columns. We shall derive the
likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis
(2)
where pt is a given matrix. The maximum of the likelihood function L for
the sample xl' ... , x N is

(3) maxL = (2'1T) - WNI inl- tN e- WN,

fi,I.
where in is given by (12) or (13) of Section 8.2.
To find the maximum of the likelihood function for the parameters
restricted to w defined by (2) we let

( 4) a=1, ... ,N,

where

(5) a-1, ... , N,

is partitioned in a manner corresponding to the partitioning of 13· Then Ya

can be considered as an observation from N(132z~2}. :I). The estimator of 132
is obtained by the procedure of Section 8.2 as
N N
(6) P2w E Ya2:~2)'A221 = E (xa - pfZ~»)Z~2)'A2l
a=1 a-l

= (C2 -l3iAI2)A221

with C and A partitioned in the manner corresponding to the partitioning of

13 and Za'
(7)

(8)

The estimator of :I is given by

N
(9) A_,\, (
N:I", - I... y" 132wza(2»)( Ya _"
_"
132,,,2:,,(2»)'
a=l
N
:= E YaY~ - P2w A 22P;w
a 1
300 TESTING THE GENERAL UNEAP HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Thus the maximum of the likelihood function over w is

(10)

The likelihood ratio criterion for testing H is (10) divided by (3), namely,

(11 )
A=IInltN
IIwl!N·
In testing H, one rejects the hypothesis if A< Ao, where Ao is a suitably
chosen number.
A speciai case of this problem led to Hotelling's T2 -criterion. If q = ql = 1
(q2 = 0), za = 1, a = 1, ... ,Nt and 13::::: PI = IJ.., then the T 2-criterion for
testing the hypothesis IJ.. = lJ..o is a monotonic fuIlction of (11) for ~ = lJ..o·
The hypothesis IJ.. = 0 and the T 2-statistic are invariant with respect to the
transformations X* = DX and x: = Dx a , a = 1, ... , N, for nonsingular D.
Similarly, in this problem the null hypothesis PI = 0 and the lik~lihood ratio
criterion for testing it are invariant with respect to nonsingular linear
transformations.

Theorem 8.3.1. The likelihood ratio criterion (11) for testing the null
hypothesis PI = 0 is invariant with respect to transformations x: ::::: Dx a , a =
1, ... , N, for nonsingular D.

Proof. The estimators in terms of x: are

(12) P* =DCA- I
=DP,
~ 1 N ~ ~ ~
(13) .z..tl = N ~ (Dxa - DPZa)( DXa - DPZa)' = D.z..nD',
a=l

(14) i3';w = DC2A n =DP2w,

i

N
(15) I*=!~(Dx
w N i...J <r
-Dit Z(2l)(Dx a -Dit
.... 2 w a a )'=DI w
.... 2 wz(2
l D'·
•
a=l

8.3.2. Geometric Interpretation

An insight into the algebra developed here can be given in terms of a
geometric interpretation. It will be convenient to use the following lemma:

Lemma 8.3.1.

(16)
8.3 LIKEUHOOD RATIO CRITERIA FOR REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 301

Proof. The normal equation ~n A = C is written in partitioned form

(17) (PlnAII + ~2ClA21'PlnAI2 + P20 A22) = (CpCJ.

Thus P2n = C2 A;1 - PWA12Ait The lemma follows by comparison with
(6). •

We can now write

(18) X -I3Z = (X - PnZ) + (P2n -132)Z2 + (Pin - ~ )ZI

= (X- PnZ) + (Pzw -13 2 )Z2
- (~2W - PW)Z2 + (Plfl -13i )ZI
== (X - PnZ) + (P 2 -132)Z2
w

+(~W - ~)(Zl -A I2 A;IZ 2 )

as an identity; here X (X1"",X rv ), ZI=(Z~I), ... ,z~», and Z2=

(zf>, ... , z~». The rows of Z = (Z;, Z2)' span a q-dimensional subspace in
N-space. Each row of I3Z is I) vector in the q-space, and hence each row of
X - I3Z is a vector from a vector in the q-space to the corresponding row
vector of X. Each row vector of X -I3Z is expressed above as the sum of
three row vectors. The first matrix on the right of (18) has as its ith row a
vector orthogonal to the q-space and leading to the ith rOW vector of X (as
shown in the preceding se.::tion). The row vectors of (P 2 w - 13 2 )Z2 are vectors
in the q2-space spanned by the rows of Z2 (since they are linear combinations
of the rows of Z2)' The row vectors of (Pw -I3iXZ] -A l1 AiiZ) are
vectors in the qcspace of Z] - AI2 Aii Z2' and this space is in the q~space of
Z, but orthogonal to the q2-space of Z2 [since (Z] -AI2Ailz2)Zi. = 0]. Thus
each row of X - I3Z is indica, ed in Figure 8.1 as the sum of three orthogonal
vectors: one vector is in the space orthogonal to Z, one is in the space of Z2'
and one is in the subspace of Z that is orthogonal to Z2'

~(fIUl-lI~)(Z. - A12 A ;l Z2)

Z2

Figure 8.1
302 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

From the orthogonality relations we have

(19) (X ~ PZ)(X ~ pZ)'

= (X - PnZ)( X ~ Pn Z)' + (P2w ~ p2)Z2Z~(P2W - 132)'
+ (P){l ~ ~)(ZI -A I2 A;IZ2)(ZI ~AI2A221Z2)'(Pln - ~),
=N in + (P2 w - 132) A 22 (P2 W - 132)'
+(Pw ~ ~)(All ~AI2A;lA21)(Pln ~ ~)'.
If we subtract (P2w ~ p2)Z2 from both sides of (18), we have

From this we obtain

( 21 ) NIw = (X - ~ ZI ~ P2w Z 2) ( X - P7 ZI - P2w Z 2),

= ( X- PH Z ) ( X - PH Z) ,
+(Pln- ~)(ZI -AI2A221Z2)(ZI -A12A221Z2)'(PW -~),
= N1n + (PIn - Pi)( All - A12A;IA21 )(Pln - ~)'.

The determinant linl = CljNP)I(X:"" PnZ).X - PnZ)'1 is proportioral

to the volume squared of the parallelotope spanned by the row vectors of
X - PnZ (translated to the origin). The determinant IiJ = CljNP)I(X-
P7Z1 - P2w Z 2 XX - PiZI - P2w Z2)'1 is proportional to the volume squared
of the parallelotope spanned by the row vectors of X - ~Zl - P2wZ2 (tram.-
lated to the origin); each of these vectors is the part of the vector of
X - ~ Z I that is orthogonal (0 Z2' Thus the test based on the likelihood ratio
criterion depends on the ratio of volumes of parallelotopes. One parallelo-
tope involves vectors orthogonal to Z, and the other involves vectors orthogo-
nal to Z,.
From ( I:) we see that the dc nsity of x I' . , . , X N can be written as

(22)

Thus, t, Pin, and P2 w form a sufficient set of statistics for I, Pl' and 13 2 ,
8.3 LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERIA FOR REGRESSION COEFFICIENT'S 303

Wilks (1932) first gave the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the equality
of mean vectors from several populations (Section 8.8). Wilks (D34) and
Bartlett (1934) extended its use to regression coefficients.

8.3.3. The Canonical Form

In studying the distributions of criteria it will be convenient to put the
distribution of the observations in canonical form. This amounts to picking a
coordinate system in the N-dimensional space so that the first ql coordinate
axes are in the space of Z that is orthogonal to Z2' the next q'}. coordinate
axes are in the space of Z2t and the last n (= N - q) coordinate axes are
orthogonal to the Z-space.
Let P2 be a q2 X q2 matrix such that

(23)

Then define the N X N orthogonal matrix Q as

(25)

where Q3 is any n X N matrix making Q orthogonal. Then the columns of

are independently normally distributed with covariance matrix I- (Theorem

3.3.1). Then

(27) $W1 = ~XQ'l = (~IZI + ~2Z2)(ZI - A I2 A2i1Z2)'Pi

= ~IAll'2 P; = ~l P 1- 1 t

(28) <fW2 ;ff XQ~ = (~1 Zl + ~2Z2) Z~P~

= (~lAI2 + ~2A22)P2'
(29) ;ffW3 = <f XQ'3 = ~ZQ3 = o.
304 TESTING THE GENERAL LI NEAR HYPOTHEStS; MANOVA

Let

(30) fl = ('YI,""'Y q ) = P1 A lI .2 P; = PIPil,

(31) f2 = ('Yqt+u· .. ,'Y q) = (PI A 12 + P2A22)P~,

Then Wl"'" WN are independently normally distributed with covariance

matrix I and ~ Wa = 'Ya' ex = 1, ... , q, and ~ Wa = 0, ex = q + 1, ... , N.
The hypothesis PI = ~ can be transformed to PI = 0 by subtraction, that
is, by letting xa - P~z~1) = Ya' as in Section 8.3.1. In canonical form then, the
hypothesis is f I = O. We can study problems in the canonical form, if we
wish, and transform solutions back to terms of X and Z.
In (17), which is the partitioned form of PnA = C, eliminate P2n to obtain

(33) Pln(AIl-AI2AZiIA21)=CI-C2A22IA21
= X( Z'I - Z~ AZi IA 21 )
= WI r-I ' ·,
that is, WI = PlnAll'2P; = PlnP~ Land fl = PIP1 1. Similarly, from (6) we
obtain

(34)

that is, W2 = (PzwA22 + P~AI2)P~ = P2w P2-

1
+ P~AI2Pil and f2 = P2 Pi
i
+
PIAI2P2-1.

8.4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION

WHEN THE HYPOTHESIS IS TRUE

8.4.1. Characterization of the Distribution

The likelihood ratio criterion is the ~Nth power of

(1)

where A Ll ' 2 =AIL - Al2 A22LA21' We shall study the distribution and the
moments of U when PI = ~. It has been shown in Section 8.2 that Ni. n is
distributed according to WeI, n), where n = N - q, and the elements of
Pn - P have a joint normal distribution independent of Ni n .
8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF TIlE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 305

From (33) of Section 8.3, we have

(2) (P w - Pi)A ll .2 (PW - Ji)' = (WI - rl)PIAU'2P;(WI - r l ) '

= (WI - r1)(Wl - rd',
by (24) of Section 8.3; the columns of WI r I are independently distributed,
each according to N(O, I).

Lemma 8.4.1. (Pin -1!lt)Au.iP ,o - I!lt)' is distribuled accordillg to

WeI, ql)'

Lemma 8.4.2. The criterion U has the distribmion of

(3) U=----
IGI
iG+HI'
where G is dislributed according lO WeI, n), H is dislributed according to
W(I, m), where m = ql' and G and Hare independenl.

),.,et

( 4) G = N in = XX I - xZ' ( ZZ') - 1 ZX I,

(5) G+ H = N in + (PIU - P~ )A ll . 2(P W - Pi),

Niw YY' YZ~(Z2Z~)-IZ2Y"

where Y = X - P~ Zl = X- (I!lt O)Z. Then

(6) G = IT' - YZ'(ZZ,)~I ZY'.

We shall denote this criterion as Up.m.'l' where p is the dimensionality,

m = ql is the lumber of columns of PI' and n = N - q is the number of
cegrees of freedom of G.
We now proceed to characterize the distribution of U as the product of
!>eta variables (Section 5.2). Write the criterion U as

(7)

(8) r. -- _
)
..... p,
306 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

and G, and H, are the submatrices of G and H, respectively, of the first i

rows and columns. Correspondingly, let y~) consiH of the first i components
of Ya. =Xa. - ~Z~I), a = 1, ... , N. We shall show that v:
is the length squared
of the vector from y,* = (yilt ... , Y,N) to its projection on Z and Y,-l =
(y\,-I), ... , y~-I)) divided by the length squared of the vector from y,* to its
projection on Z2 and Y, - I'

Lemma 8.4.3. Let y be an N-component row vector and V an r X N matrix.

Then the sum of squares of the residuals of y from its regression on U is

yy' yV'
VJ vV'
( 9)
IVV'I

Proof By Corollary A.3.l of the Appendix, (9) is yy' - yV'(VU,)-1 Vy',

which is the sum of squares of residuals as indicated in (13) of Section 8.2.
•
Lemma 8.4.4. ~ defined by (8) is the ratio of the sum of squares of the
residuals of Y,I' ... , Y, N from their regression on y\' - I) , ••• , y~ - I) and Z to the
sumoif squaresoif rest"d ua ls aifY'I •... 'Y'N fromth' .
etrregresswnonYI (i-I)
•... 'YN(i-I)
and Z2'

Proof The numerator of V, can be written [from (13) of Section 8.2]

I G,I I Y, Y,' - Y, Z ' ( ZZ ') - I ZY,'I

(10) IG,~= IY;-IY;'-I -Y;_IZ'(ZZ,)-IZY;:_II

Y, Y,' lCZ'j
~Z' IZZ'I
ZY,'
Y; - I Y,'- I Y,_I Z '
ZY;'_I zz' jlZZ'1

Y, - I Y,'- I ,,
Yi'" Yi_IZ'
y,*y',-I y(y,*' Y(Z'
ZY,'_I Zy,*' ZZ'
8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 307

y,*yt' ynY;'-1 Z,]

=~l
[If;l k [Ii;' j[Yf-,
__~______________~__~
z']

[Y,;ljPi'_1 Z'1

=y~y~'
"
-y~
I
(Y.'I-I Z' )[~-IY;-I
ZY,'_I

by Corollary A.3.1. Application of Lemma 8.4.3 shows that the right-hand

side of (10) is the sum of squares of the residuals of yf on Y,-I and Z. The
denominator is evaluated similarly with Z replaced by Z2' •

The ratio V, is the 21Nth power of the likelihood ratio criterion for
testing the hypothesis that the regression of y,* =x'i -llil ZI on ZI is 0 (in
Y,
the presence of regression on -I and Z2); here 1111 is the ith row of ~. For
i = 1, gu is the sum of squares of the residuals of yt
= (Yw'''' YIN) from its
regression on Z, and gIl + hll is th~ sum of squares of the residuals from Z2'
The ratio VI = gll/(gll + h ll ), which is approximate to test the hypothesis
that regression of yi on ZI is 0, is distributed as Xn2 /( Xn2 + X~) (by Lemma
8.4.2) and has the beta distribution (3(v; ~n, ~m). (See Section 5.2, for
example.) Thus V; has the beta density

(11) .Brv;~(n+l-i),~m]

r[Hn+m+1-i)] !(n+l-n-I(1 )tm-l

r [t(n + 1 -
2
= i) ] rOm) V - V ,

for 0 :s; v :s; 1 and 0 for v outside this interval. Since this distribution does not
depend on }{ _ I, we see that the ratio V; is independent of ~ -1' and hence
independent of IVI"'" Vi-I' Then VI"'" Vp are independent.

Theorem 8.4.1. The distribution of U defined by (3) is the distribution of the

product nf=I~' where VI"'" Vp are independent and V; has the density (11).

The cdf of U can be found by integrating the joint density of VI"'" l-j,
over the range

(12) n~:s;u.
i= 1
308 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

We shall now show that for given N - q2 the indices p and ql can be
interchanged; that is, the distributions of Up qI' N-q 2 _q I = Up •m• n and of
t

Uql,p,N-qZ-p = Um,p,n+m-p are the same. The joint density of G and WI

defined in Section 8.2 when I = I and PI = 0 is

(13)

Let G + WIW; =1 = CC' and let WI = CV. Then

IGI ICC' - CVV'C'I

(14) Up.m,n = = = IIp - VV'I
IG + WIW;I ICC'I

Ip V 1m V'
= V'
= V
= 11m - V'VI;
1m Ip

the fourth and sixth equalities follow from Theorem A.3.2 of the Appendix,
and the: fifth from permutation of rows and columns. Since the Jacobian of
WI = CV is model CI m = 111 tm, the joint density of 1 and V is

(15)

. pf r[t(n +m + I-i)]) IIp - VV'lt(n-p-l)

JJ l r [ Hn + 1 - i) ] 7rtm p

for 1 and Ip - VV' positive definite, and 0 otherwise. Thus 1 and V are
independently distributed; the density of 1 is the first term in (15), namely,
w(lllp,n + m), and the density of V is the second term, namely, of the form

(16) KII - VV'lt(n-p-l)

p

for Ip - VV' positive definite, and 0 otherwise. Let ,J * = V', p* = m, m* = p,

and n* = n + m - p. Then the density of V * is

(17) KII - V' V It(n-p-I)

p * *
for Ip - V~ V * positive definite, and 0 otherwise. By (14), IIp - V~ V * I =
11m - V*V~I, and hence the density of U* is

(18) KI I - V V' It(n* -p* -I)

p* * * ,
8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 309

which is of the form of (16) with p replaced by p* = m, m replaced by

m* = p, and n - p - 1 replaced by n* - p* - 1 = n - p 1. Finally we note
that Up.m,n given by (14) is 11m - U * u~ I = Um,p,n+m-p'

Theorem 8.4.2. When the hypothesis is true, the distribu.tion of Up • ql , l\ -q 1 _q~

is the same as that of Uql ,p,N-p-q2 (i.e., that of Up.m,n is that of Um.p.lJ+m.-p).

8.4.2. Moments
Since (11)'is a density and hence integrates to I! by change of notation

(19) [lua 1(I_u)b- 1 du=B(a,b)=r(a)r(b).

10 r(a+b)

From this fact we see that the hth moment of V, is

(20) cvh= (I rl~(n+m+l-i)l u!(n+l-rl+h-I(I_u)tm - 1 do

I 10 rlHn+l-i)]rOm)

r[t(n '+ I-i) +h]rlHn +m + I-i)]

= r[Hn + l-i)]rlt(n +m + I-i) +h] .

Since VI'"'' Vp are independent, CUI! = cnf""lv,h = Df=l CV,h. We obtain

the following theorem;

Theorem 8A.3. The hlh moment of U[ljh > - ten + I - p)] is

In the first expression p can be replaced by m, m by p, and n by

n +m - p.
Suppose p is even, that is, p = 2r. We use the duplication formula

(22)
310 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS: MANOVA

Then the hth moment of U~r.m.n is

t 23 )
~U~'
~r.,".'1
= n
j.,1
J r[Hm +n +2)-j] r[i(m +n + 1) -j]
\r[!(m+n+2)-j+h] r[Hm+n+l)-j+h]

.r[}(n+2)-j+h]r[t(n+l)-j+h] )
r[i(n+2) -j]r[t(n+l) -j]
_
-J]
r {f(m+n+I-2 nr(n+I-2 j +2h)}
r(m+n-I-2j+2h)r(n+I-2j) ,

It is clear from the definition of the beta function that (23) is

(24) n(f
1",1 \ (1
1 r (m + n + ~ -
r(n + 1 - 2j)r(m)
2 j) l" + I - 2 Jl + 2" - I (1 _ y) m - I dY }

\\ here the Y, are independent and ~ has density (3(y: n + 1 - 2j, m).
Suppose p is odd; that is, p = 2s + 1. Then

( 25) <-,"
(£>
_C<'
U2s+l.m.n - (£J
(
n ZI Zs+
S

1=1
2
I
)"
,

where the Z, are independent and Z, has density (3(z; n + 1 - 2i, m) for
i = 1.. .. , sand ZH I is distributed with density {3 [z; (n + 1 - p )/2, m /2].

Theorem 8.4.4. U2r. "'. n is distributed as fl~ = I 2 , where Yl ,.··, Yr are r:

indepelLdent and Y; has density (3(y; n + 1 - 2i, m); U2 s+ I m n is distributed as
11,', I Z/Z, + I, where the Z" i = 1, ... ,s, are independent' a;W Z, has density
(3(z: II + 1 -. 2i, m), and Zs+ I is independently distributed with density (3[z:~(n
-1~ I .- P ). ~ III ].

8.4.3. Some Special Distributions

p=l
From the preceding characterization we see that the density of UI.n, , n is

P6)
r[Hn +m)] ~n-I(I- )~m-I
r(in)f(tm) u u.
8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 311

Another way of writing Ul,m,n is

1 1
(27) U = = -----,------:--=--
l,m,ll 1 + Li"l 1 + (mjn)Fm,n '

where gIl is the one element of G = NIn and Fm,n is an F-statistic. Thus

1- Ut,nt,n . ~ =F
(28) Ul,m,n m m.n·

Theorem 8.4.5. The distribution of [(1- UI,m,n)jU1,m,n]'njm is the

F-distribution with m and n degrees of freedom; the distribution of
[(1 - Up, I, nj Up, I, n] . (n + 1 - p) j P is the F-distribution with p and n + 1 - P
degrees of freedom.

p-2
From Theorem 8.4.4, we see that the density of VU2,m,n IS

(29) r(n+m-l) x n - 2 (I-x)m-1

r(n - l)r(m) ,

and thus the density of U2, m, fI is

(30)
r(n + m -1) i tn - 3 )(I_ c)m-J
2r(n-1)f(m)u vu.

From (29) it follows that

1 - VU2 . IIl ,tl n -1

(31) m = F2m ,2(n - I)'
VU2 ,m,n

Theorem 8.4.6. The distribution of [(1 - VU2,m,n )j VU 2,m,n]' (n -l)jm

is the F-distribution with 2m and 2(n - 1) degrees of freedom; the distribution
of [(1- JUp,2,n)j JUp,2,1I ]·(n + 1 - p)jp is the F-distribution with 2p and
2(n + 1 - p) degrees of freedom.

pEven
Wald and Brookner (1941) gave a method for finding the distribution of
Up,m,n for p or m even. We shall present the method of Schatzoff (1966a). It
will be convenient first to consider Up, m, n for m == 2r. We can write the event
nf"lV;~U as
(32) Y1 + ... + ~ ~ - log u.
312 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

where Y1, ..• , ~ are independent and Y; = -log V, has the density

for 0 ~ y < 00 and 0 otherwise, and

(34)
r[Hn+l-i)+r]
K{= r[Hn+l-i)]f(r)
1
= (r-l)!1=0
il n + 1 - i + 2j
2

The joint density of Y1, ••. , ~ is then a linear combination of terms

exp[ - r.f=1 a;yJ The density of Uj = r.!=l Y, can be obtained inductively from
the density of UJ _I = r.f:::}j and lj, j = 2, ... , p, which is a linear combina-
tion of terms wf-I eCWj-t+QjYj. The density of UJ consists of linear combina-
tions of

(35)

k k' k-h
cw "" ( 1 h . wi
= e Jh ':0 - ) ( k - h)! -(c~--=-a-J)-:h"""'+-:-I

The evaluation involves integration by parts.

Theorem 8.4.7. If P is even or if m is even, the density of Up,m.n can be

expressed as a linear combination oftenns (-log U)ku /, where k is an integer and
I is a half integer.

From (35) we see that the cumulative distribution function of - log U is a

linear combination of terms w k e- 1w and hence the cumulative distribution
function of U is a linear combination of terms (-log u)kU I. The values of k
and I and the coefficients depend on p, m, and n. They can be obtained by
inductively carrying out the procedure leading to Theorem 8.4.7. Pillai and
Gupta (1969) used Theorem 8.4.3 for obtaining distributions.
8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 313

An alternative approach is to use Theorem 8.4.4. The complement to the

cumulative distribution function U2r , m.1I is

(36)

Pr{ U2r , rn,n ~ u} = pr{ D Y, > ru}

In the density, (1 - y)m-I can be expanded by the binomial theorem. Then

all integrations are expressed as integrations of powers of the variables,
As an example. consider r = 2. The density of Y1 and Y2 is

where

(38)
c= r(n+m-l)r(n+m-3)
r(n - l)r(n - 3)r2(m)

The complement to the cdt of U4 • m, n is

m-I [(m-l)!]2(-I)'+1
(39) Pr{ U4 , m , n ~ u} = C . ~ 0 ( m - l. - 1) '( . 1) ,.1.]
. m - ]-
., . ,.
1,1=

m-I [(m-l)!]2(-I)'+!
= c,,~o (m - i-I) '(m - j - 1) 'i!j!(n - 3 + j)

The last step of the integration yields powers of ru and products of powers
of ru
and log u (for 1 + i - j = - 1).
314 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Particular Values
Wilks (IQ35) gives explicitly the distrihutions of U for p = 1, P = 2, p = 3
with m = 3; P = 3 with In 4: and p = 4 with m = 4. Wilks's formula for
p =" 3 with m = 4 appears to be incorrect; see the first edition of this book.
Consul (11.)66) gives many distributivns for special caSLS. See also Mathai
(1971).

8.4.4. The Likelihood Ratfo Procedure

Let u p • I7I • n (a) be the a significance point for Up . m • ,!; that is,

(40) Pr{Up.",.n :5 u p. nt .,,( a )IH true} = a.

It is shown in Section 8.5 that - [n - ~(p - m + 1)] lc,g Up,m.n has a limiting
x~-distribution with pm degrees of freedom. Let Xp'lm(a) denote the a
significance point of X;m, and let

(41 )
- [Il- HP -111 + I)] log Ll/ 1 • In " . ( a)
C p, ,n , n - p + I ( a) = :< ( )
XI'II' a

Table 8.1 [from Pearson and Hartley (1972)] gives value of Cp,m,M(a) for
a = 0.10 and 0.05. p = 1(1)10. various even values of m, and M = Jl - P + 1
= 1(1)10{2)20.24,30,40.60,120.
To test a null hypothesis one computes Up. m,l. and rejects the null
hypothesis at significance level a if

Since Cp.m.n(a) > 1, the hypothesis is accepted if the left-hand side of (42) is
less than xim( a).
The purpose of tabulating Cp,m. M(a) is that linear interpolation is reason-
ably accurate because the entries decrease monotonically and smoothly to 1
as M increases. Schatzoff (1966a) has recommended interpolation for odd p
by using adjacent even values of p and displays some examples. The table
also indicates how accurate the x:!·approximation is. The table has been
ex.tended by Pillal and Gupta (1969).

SA.S. A Step-down Procedure

The criterion U has been expressed in (7) as the product of independent beta
variables VI' V2 , •. • , Vp' The ratio v:
is a least squares criterion for testing the
null hypothesis that in the regression of x~ - ll;rZr on Z = (Z~ Zz)' and
8.4 DISTRIBUT[OI' OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 315

Xi_I the coefficient of ZI is O. The null hypothesis that the regression of X

on ZI is Pi, which is equivalent to the hypothesis that the regression of
X - Pi Z I on Z I i~ 0, is composed of the hypotheses that the regression
of xi - IJ;IZI on ZI is 0, i = 1, ... , p. Hence the null hypothesis t3 J :::: Pi can
be tested by use of VI"'" Vp'
Since ~ has the beta density (1) under the hypothesis 13 11 = 1311'

I-V,n-i+l
( 43)
~ m

has the F·distribution with m and n - i + 1 degrees of freedom. The step-

down testing procedure is to compare (43) for i = 1 with the significance
point Fm,n(e l ); if (43) for i = 1 is larger, reject the null hypothesis that the
regression of xf - 13il ZI on ZI is 0 and hence reject the null hypothesis that
131 :::: Pi· If this first component null hypothesis is accepted, compare (43) for
i = 2 with Fm,n-l(e2)' In sequence, the component null hypotheses are
tested. If one is rejected, the sequence is stopped and the hypothesis 131 = Pi
is rejected. If all component null hypotheses are accepted, the composite
hypothesis is accepted. When the hypothesis 131 = ~ is true, the probability
of accepting it is n;=lo - eJ Hence the significance level of the step-down
test is 1 - nf=IO - e,).
In the step-down pr.ocedure H.e investigator usually has a choice of the
ordering of the variablest (i.e., the numbering of the components of X) and a
selection of component significance levels. It seems reasonable to order the
variables in descending order of importance. The choice of significance levels
will affect the rower. If ei is a very small number, it will take a correspond-
ingly large deviation from the ith null hypothesis to lead to rejection. In the
absence of any other reason, the component significance levels can be taken
equal. This procedure, of course, is not invariant with respect to linear
transformation of the dependc:nt vector variable. However, before cacrying
out a step-down procedure, a linear transformation can be used to determine
the p variables.
The factors can be grouped. For example, group XI"'" Xk into one ~et
and X k + I ' ••• , xp into another set. Then Uk.m,n = n~=1 ~ can be used to test
the null hypothesis that the first k rows of 131 are the first k rows of ~.
Subsequently fIf=k+ I V, is used to lest the hypothesis that the last p - k lOWS
of 13 1 are those of Pi; this latter criterion has the distribution under the null
hypothesis of Up-k,tn,n-k'

t In Some cases the ordering of variables may be imposed; for example, XI might be an
observation at the first time point, x2 at the second time point, and so on.
316 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

The investigator may test the null hypl?thesis PI = P~ by the likelihood

ratio procedure. If the hypot~esis is rejected, he may look at the factors
VI' ... , ~ to try to determine which rows of PI might be different from ~.
The factors can also IJe used to obtain confidence regions for 1311"", Ppl'
Let ViC e,) be defined by

1 - v.( e.) n - i + 1
(44) 1 I • =F (e)
vi(el ) m m,n-t+l I'

Then a confidence region for Il n of confidence 1 - ei iF>

x:t'x'!"
1 , XI*X't-I x*Z'
t
Xi-I Xi *, Xi-I X;_I Xi_IZ'
Zx*'
1
ZX;_I ZZ'
(45)
(xi - IlH Z I)( xi - il,iZI)' (xi - il,iZI )X;_I (xi - llilZI )Z;
X'_I (xi - lliI Z I)' X,_IX;_I Xi_IZ;
Z2( xi - Pil ZI)' Z2 X;_1 Z2Z;

X t - I X:_ I Zi-I Z!
Z2 X :_1 Z2 X 2
~ vi ( ei )·
Xi-I X;_I X,_IZ'
ZX:_ I ZZ'

8.S. AN ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF THE DISTRIBUTION

OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION

8.S.1. Gen~ral Theory of Asymptotic Expansions

In this sect:on we develop a large·sample distribution theory for I:he criterion
studiea in this chapter. First we develop a general asymptotic expansion of
the distributiun of a random variable whose moments are certain functions of
gamma functions [Box (1949)]. Then we apply it to the case of the likelihood
ratio critel ion for the linear hypothesis.
We consider a random variable W (0 :5 W:5 1) with hth moment t

( 1) h=O,l, ... ,

t [n all cases where we apply this result, the parameters x k , ~k> YJ • and 1)) will be such that there
is a distribution with such moments.
8.5 ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CRITERION 317

where K is a constant such that (f; WO = 1 and

a b
(2) ~ Xk = ~ Y)"
k~l ,=1

It will be observed that the hth moment of A = UJ.~l' n is of this form

e
where x k = !N = Y)' k = ~(- q + 1 - k), Tl) = 1( -
q2 + 1 - j), a = b = p, We
treat a more general case here because applications later in this book require
it.
If we let

(3) M= -210gW,

the characteristic function of pM (0 ~ p < I) is

(4) cp( t) = £' e,'pM

= £'W- 211 P

Here p is arbitrary; later it will depend on N. If a = b, xI.: = Yk' gl.:::; Tl~, then
(I) is the hth moment of the product of powers of variables with beta
distributions, and then (I) holds for all h for which the gamma functions
exist. In this case (4) is valid for all real t. We shall assume here that (4) holds
for all real t, and in each case where we apply the result we shan verify this
assumption.
Let

(5) <p( t) = log cp( t) = g(t) - g(O),

where

get) =2it P [ t
k=1
xklogxk - EY)IOgy)]
F 1

a
+ E log r[ px k( 1 - 2it) + (3k + ek]
k=l
b
- E log r[ py){1- 2it) + 8) + Tl)],
j= I

where {3k = (1 - P)xk and 8,

= (1 - p)Y The form get) - g(O) makes <P(O) =
r
0, which agrees with the fact that K is such that cp(O) = 1. We make use of an
318 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

expansion formula for the gamma function [Barnes (1899), p. 64] which is
asymptotic in x for bounded h:

where t RII/+l(X)=O(x-(n l +l)) and Br(h) is the Bernoulli polynomial of

degree r and order unity defined by t

(7)

The first three polynomials are [Bo(h) = 1]

BI(h) =h-~,

(8) B2(h) =122 -h + i.

B3 ( h) = h3 - ~h2 + ~h.

Taking x = px k(1 - 2it), Py/l - 2it) and h = 13k + gk' Sj + Tlj in tum, we
ohtain

(9) ¢(t)=Q-g(O)-~flog(I-2it)
m a h
+ E wr(1-2it)-r + E O(x;(m+l)) + E O(Yj(m+l)).
r~1 k=l j=l

where

( 10) f= - 2{ ~ gk - ~ Tlj - Ha - b) }.

( 11 ) = (_I)r+1 \ " Br+1( 13k + gd _" Br +1( Sf + TlJ) }

(Or (+ 1) '-.J
r r k ( px k )
r '-.J
j ( PYj)
r'

( 12) Q= ha - b) log 27T - ~f log p

+ E(Xk + gk - t)log x k - E (Y, + TI, - ~)logYJ"

k j

~R""l(.d:o: O(x-(m+I)) means Ix m + 1R m + l(x)1 is bounded as Ixl ~ <Xl.

*This definition differs slightly from that of Whittaker and Watson [(1943), p. 126], who expand
r(c· hT - ])/(e T -. n. If B:(h) is this .~econd tyre of ro1ynomiill. B 1(h)=Bf(h)- B 2r (h)= t.
B!.(h) + ( - 1)' + I B,. where B, is the rth Bernoulli number, and B 2,+ I( h) = B~r+ l(h).
8.5 ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUfION OF CRITERION 319

One resulting form for ep(t) (which we shall not use here) is
I m
(13) ep(t) =l'<1>(I) = eQ - g (O)(I- 2it) -"if E a v (1- 2itfU +R~+I'
U~O

where E;=oa uz-u is the sum of the first m + 1 terms in the series expansion
of exp( - E~~o wrz- r ), and R~ +. is a remainder term. Alternatively,
m
(14) <I>(t) = -tflog(I-2it) + E w [(1-2it)-r -1] +R'm+I'
r
r=1

where

(15) R'm+I = Eo(x;(m+I)) + EO(Yj-(m+I)).

k j

In (14) we have expanded gCO) in the same way we expanded get) and have
collected similar terms.
Then

(16) ep(t) = e <1> (I)

= (1- 2itf tJ exp[ £

r-I
£ +R'm+l]
wr (l- 2it) -r -
r-I
Wr

= (1- 2it) -tJ {}] 11 + wr(l- 2it) -r + i! w;(1- 2it)-2 r

.. ·1
D( + i! w; - ... )+
X 1- Wr R';'a I }

= (1- 2it) -tJ[1 + TI(t) + T2(t) + '" + Tm(t) + R"~+I],

where Tr(t) is the term in the expansion with terms Wfl ... w:', Eis f = r; for
example,

(17)

In most applications, we will have x k = e k 8 and Yj = d j 8, where c k and dJ

will be constant and 8 will val)' (i.e., will grow with the sample size). In this
case if p is chosen so (1- p)x k and (1- p)Yj . have limits, then R'':n+ I is
O(8-(m+I). We collect in (16) all terms wfl ... Eis,=r, because these w:',
terms are O( 8- r ).
320 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

It will be observed that T,(t) is a polynomial of degree r in (l - 2it)-1 and

each term of (1 - 2it)-"2'f T/t) is a constant tir,les (1 - 2it)- lU
1
for an integral
v. We know that (l - 2it) - ~/J is the characteristic function of the x2-density
with v degrees or freedom; that is,

(19)

=/ 00 1
_00 ... 7r
I
-;:;-(1-2it)-lue-,lzdt.

Let

(20)
Iv
Rill + I =
Joo_00 27r
1
(1 -
. -tJ",
211) Rm + I ('
-lIZ
dt .

Then the density of pM is

00 1 m
-cb(t)e-i'Zdt= ESr(z)+R~t-l
(21) / _0027r
r=O

=gf(Z) + w 1[gf+2(Z) -gr(z)]

+{ W2[gf+4(z) -gf(z)]
+ ~~ [g[+4(Z) - 2g[+z(z) +g[(Z)]}

Let

(22)

The cdf of M is written in terms of the cdf of pM, which is the integral of
8.5 ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CRITERION 321

the density, namely,

(23) Pr{ M :s; Mo}

= Pr{ pM s pMu}
m
= E Ur ( pMo) + R~n+l
r=O

.
Pr{ xl $ pMo}) + ~I (Pr{ xl~~ s pMo}

- 2 Pr{ xl., :;; pM.} + Pr{ xl :;; PMo}l]

+ ... +Um ( pMo) +R~, l'

The remainder R~ + [ is our (m + I ) ; this last statement can be verified by

following the remainder terms along. (In fact, to make the proof rigorous one
needs to verify that each remainder is of th,= proper order in a uniform
sense.)
In many cases it is desirable to choose p so that WI = O. In such a case
using only the first term of (23) gives an error of order 8- J .
Further details of the ex! lansion can be found in Box's paper (1949).

Theorem 8.5.1. Suppose.' that $W h is given by (I) for all pure(v imaginal}'
h, with (2) holding. Then the edf of - 2p log W Is given by (23). The error,
R"m+l' is O(8- cm + I ») ifxk'C:~ck8, YJ "2!.d,8 (ck>O, d,>O), and if (l-p)x",
(1 - p)Y, have limits, where p may depend on 8.

Box also considers approximating the distribution of - 2 p log W by an

F-distribution. He finds that the error in this approximation can be made to
be of order (r 3.

8.5.2. Asymptotic Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio Criterion

We now apply Theorem 8.5.1 to the distrihution of - llog A. the likelihood
ratio criterion developed in Section 8.3. We let W = A. The hth moment of A
.IS

(24)
K nk~ I r[ t( N - q + 1 - k ;.- Nil)]
nf~lr[}(N-q1+ l-j+Nh)]'
322 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; tv' ANOVA

and this holds for all h fm which the gamma functions exist, including purely
imaginary h. We let a = b = p,

~k = 1( -q + 1 - k), f3k = Hl- p)N,

( 25)
TJl = ~( -q2 + 1 - j), s, = 1(1 p) N.

We observe that

(26)
\ 2w 1 = L
p {U[(1-P)N-q+l-k 1fIN- H(1 p)N-q+l-kl
k-I '2P
2
{1[( 1 - p) N - q2 + 1 - k] } - {[ (1 p) N q, + 1 - k 1}

=~
pN
t [-2[(1-P)N-q2+1-k]ql+q~ +9..!.]
k=l 4 2

= :;N [- 2( 1 - p) N + 2q2 - 2 + ( P + 1) + q 1 + 2] .

To make this zero, we require that

(27)

Then

( 28 ) Pr { - 2 ~ log A ~ z}
=Pr{-klogUp.q1 ,N_c ~z}
=Pr{Xp?.q,~z}

+ ~; (Pr{ X;ql +4 ~z} - Pr{ X;q, ~z})

+ :4 [Y4(Pr{ X;ql+ 8 ~z} - Pr{ X;ql ~z})

-yi(Pr{X;ql+ 4 ~z} - Pr{Xp2Ql ~z})] +R;.

8.5 ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CRITERION 323

where

(29) k = pN = N - q2 - Hp + q[ + 1) = n - ~(p - q[ + 1),

pql(p2 + q? - 5)
(30) 'Y2 = 48 '
2
(31) 'Y4 = 'Yl + ~io [3p4 + 3q~ + lOp2q; - 50(p2 + qn + 159].
Since it = U}~I,n' where n = N - q, (28) gives Pr{ -k log Up. ql • n ::; z}.

Theorem 8.5.2. The cdf of - k log Up. q .. n is given by (28) with k = n

- ~(p - q[ + 1), and 'Y2 and 'Y4 given by (30) and (31), respectively. The
remainder tenn ~ O(N- 6 ).

The coefficient k = n - ~(p - q[ + 1) is known as the Bartlett co"ection.

If the first tenn of (28) is used, the error is of the order N- 2; if the second,
N- 4 ; and if the third,t N- 6 • The second term is always negative and is
numerically maximum for Z= V(pq[ +2)(pq[) (=pq[ +1, approximately).
For p:2 3, ql ~ 3, we have 'Y2/k2 ::; [(p2 + q~)/kF /96, and the contribution
of the second term lies between -0.005[(p2 + q~)/kF and O. For p ~ 3,
ql ~ 3, we have 'Y4 S; 'Yi, and the contribution of the third term is numerically
less than ('Y2/ k 2 )2. A rough rule that may be followed is that use of the first
term is accurate to three decimal places if p2 + s:: k/3. qr
As an example of the calcul..ltion, consider the case of p = 3, q I = 6,
N - q2 = 24, and z = 26.0 (the 10% significance point xls). In this case
'Y2/ k 2 = 0.048 and the second term is - 0.007: 'Y4/ k4 = 0.0015 and the third
term is - 0.0001. Thus the probability of -1910g U3,6, IS s:: 26.0 is 0.893 to
three decimal places.
Since

(32) -[n- Hp-m+l)]logu p.m,n(a) =Cp,m.n_p+[(a)X;m(a),

the proportional error in approximating the left-hand side by X;m(a) IS
Cp, m, n _ p + [ - 1. The proportional error increases slowly with p and m.

8.5.3. A Normal ApproximatIOn

Mudholkar and Trivedi (1980), (1981) developed a normal approximation to
the distribution of -log Up.m,n which is asymptotic as p and/or m ~ 00. It is
related to the Wilson-Hilferty normal approximation for the X2-distribution.

t Box has shown th..J.t the term of order N- 5 is 0 and gives the coefficients to be used in the term
of order N- 6 •
324 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

First, we give the background of the approximation. Suppose {Yk } is a

sequence of nonnegative random variables such that (Yk - /-tk)/ uk ~ N(O, 1)
as k -+ 00, where cC'Yk = /-tk and 'Y(Yk ) = Uk2. Suppose also that /-tk -+ 00 and
Uk2/ /-tk is bounded as k -+ 00. Let Zk = (Yk/ /-tk)h. Then

(33)

by Theorem 4.2.3. The approach to normality may be accelerated by choosing

h to make the distribution of Zk nearly symmetric as measured by its third
cumulant. The normal distribution is to be used as an approximation and is
justified by its accuracy in practice. However, it will be convenient to develop
the ideas in terms of limits, although rigor is not necessary.
By a Taylor expansion we express the hth moment of Yk / /-tk as

(34) cC'Zk = cC'( ::) h

2
=1+h(h-l)uk
2 /-tk

2
h(h-l)(h-2) 4cPk- 3(h-3)(Uk //-tk)2 O( -3)
+'4 2 + /-tk ,
- /-tk

where cPk = cC'(Yk - /-tk)"!' / /-tk' assumed bounded. The rth moment of Zk is
expressed by replacment of h by rh in (34). The central moments of Zk are

(36)

To make the third moment approximately 0 we take h to be

(37)

Then Zk = (Yk/ /-tk)ho is treated as normally distributed with mean and

variance given by (34) and (35), respectively, with h = h o.
8.S ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CRITERION 325

Now we consider -log Up,m.n = - r.f~1 log v" where Vi"'" Vp are inde-
pendent and Vi has the density {3(x; (n + 1 - ;)/2, m/2), i = 1,.,., p. As
n --+ 00 and m --+ 00, -log 1~ tends to normality. If V has the density
(3(x; a/2, b/2), the moment generating function of -logV is

$ e
-II V
=
r[(a +b)/2]r(a/2-t)
=-7-'---"""---:~---=-~"":""---T-
(38) og
rCa/2)r[(a +b)/2 -1] .

Its logarithm is the cumulant generating function, Differentiation of the last

yields as the rth cumulant of V

(39) r = 1,2, ... ,

where ",(w) == d log f(w)/dw. [See Abramovitz and Stegun (1972), p. 258, for
elCample,] From few + 1) = wf(w) we obtain the recursion relation tb(w + 1)
= ",(w) + l/w. This yields for s = 0 and l an integer

(40)

The validity of (40) for s = 1,2, ... is verified by differentiation. [The expre~­
sion for ",'(Z) in the first line of page 223 of Mudholkar and Trivedi (1981) is
incorrect.] Thus for b = 2l

( 41)

From these results we obtain as the rth cumulant of -log Up. 21.11

P I-I 1
(42) Kr (-logUp ,21,n)=Y(r-1)! E E
I~IJ~O
" /'
(n-l,1-_J)
r'

As l --+ 00 the series diverges for r = 1 and converges for r = 2,3, and hence
Kr/ K I --+ 0, r = 2,3. The same is true as p --+ 00 (if n /p approaches a positive
constant).
Given n, p, and l, the first three cumulants arc calculatcd from (42). Then
ho is determined from (37), and ( -log Up • 21.,,)"" is treated as approximately
normally distributed with mean and variance calculated from (34) and (3))
for h = hI).
Mudholkar and Trivedi (1980) calculated the error of approximation fllr
significance levels of 0.01 and 0.05 for n from 4 to 66, p = 3,7, and
326 TESTING THE GENERAL UNEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

q = 2,0,10. The maximum error is less than 0.0007; in most cases the error is
considerably less. The error for the xl-approximation is much larger, espe-
cially for small values of 11.
In case of m odd the rth cumulant can be approximated by

p [ ~(f/l - 3) I I I ]
(-B) 2'(r-J)!E E -- r+- r'
,,,,I ,=0 (11-1+1-2]) 2(n-i+m)

Davis (1933. 1935) gave tables of ~(w) and its derivatives.

8.5.4. An F-Approximation
Rao (1951) ha<; used the expansion of Section 8.52 to develop an expansion
of the distribution of another function of UjI,m,u in terms of beta distribu-
lioll~. The con~II.IIlts can he adjusted ~1.1 thtlt the term after the leading one is
of order m" ~. A good approximation is to consider

I-Ulls ks-r
(44 )
UIIS pm

as F with pm and ks - r degrees of freedom, where

p 2m 2 - 4 pm
(45) s= 1'=2-1,
p2 +m 2 - 5 '

and k is 11 - ~(p - m - 1). For p == I or 2 or m = I or 2 the F-distribution is

exactly as given in Section 8.4. If ks r is not an integer, interpolation
between t\vo integer values can be used. For smaller values of m this
approximaliun is mure accurate than the x~-approximation.

S.6. OTHER CRlTERlA FOR TESTlNG TllE LiNEAR HYPOTHESIS

8.6.1. Functions of Roots

Thus far the only test of the linear hypothesis we have considered is the
likelihood ratio test. In this section we consider other test procedures.
Let in, PIn' and P2w be the estimates of the parameters in N(l3z, ~),
based on a sample of N observations. These are a sufficient set of statistics,
and we shall base test procedures on them. As was shown in Section 8.3, if
the hypothesis is PI = 13~, one can reformulate the hypothesis as 13. = 0 (by
8.6 OTHER CRITERIA FOR TESTING THE LINEAR HYPOTHESIS 327

replacing xa by xa - P'rz~». Moreover,

(1) PZa=PIZ~)+P2Z~)

= PI(Z~) -AI2A22IZ~») + (13 2 + PIAI2A2i )z~)

= PI Z~(I) + Pi z~),
where I: a Z*(I)Z(2)
A a a ' = 0 and r. a z*(I)Z*(I),
a a = A I .2. Then
I AI = A ln and 8*2
........ P2 =
P2w'
We shall use the principle of invariance to reduce the set of tests to be
considered. First, if we make the transformation X; = Xa + rz~\ we leave
the null hypothesis invariant, since $ X:
= p l z!(1) + (13; + r)z~) and P=; + r
is unspecified. The only invariants of the sufficient statistics are i and PI
(since for each, P';, there is a r that transforms it to 0, that is, - P'; ).
Second, the n.lll hypothesis is invariant under the transformation z! *(1) =
Cz!(1) (C nonsingular); the transformation carries PI to PIC-I. Under this
transformation i and PIAII.2P; are invariant; we consider A II .2 as informa-
tion relevant to inference. However, these are the only invariants. For
consider a function of PI and A II .2, say f(PI' A II .2). Then there is a C* that
carries this into f(P I C* -I, I), and a further orthogonal transformation
carries this into f(T, I), where tiv = 0, i < V, tif ~ O. (If each row of T is
considered a vector in q.-space, the rotation of coordinate axes can b(. done
so the first vector is along the first coordinate axis, the second vector is in the
plane determined by the first two coordinate axes, and so forth). But T is a
function of IT' = PI A 1I.2P~; that is, the elements of T are uniquely deter-
mined by this equation and the preceding restrictions. Thus our tests will
A ,.. ", A,..",
depend on I and PI A II .2PI. Let NI = G and PI A II . 2PI =H.
Third, the null hypothesis is invariant when Xa is replaced by Kx a , for ~
and P=; are unspecified. This transforms G to KGK' and H to KHK'. The
only invariants of G and H under such transformations are the roots of

(2) IH-IGI = O.

It is clear the roots are invariant, for

(3) 0= IKHK' -IKGK' I

= IK(H-IG)K'I

= IKI·IH-IGI·IK'I.
On the other hand, these are the only invariants, for given G and H there is
328 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

a K such that KGK' = I and

II 0 0
0 12 0
(4) KHK' =L=

0 0 Ip

where II ~ · .. I p are the roots of (2). (See Theorem A.2.2 of the Appendix.)

Theorem 8.6.1. Let x" be all observatioll ji"011l N(PIZ~(I) + ~z~~\ 1),
where LaZ:(I)z~)' = 0 and LaZ:(l)Z:(I), = A ll . 2 • The only functions of the
sufficient statistics and A II 2 invariant under Ihe transfonnations x~ = Xu +
fZ(2) _**(I) = Cz*(I)
a ,Awa a ' and x*a =](x a are the roots o(
'J(2), where G = N~
~
and
A A I
H = ~IAll.?PI'

The likelihood ratio criterion is a function of

(5)
IGI IKGK'I III
U= IG+HI = IKGK' +KHK'I = I:-'-+~L:-;-I
-:-:1

which is clearly invariant under the transformations.

Intuitively it would appear that good tests should reject the null hypothesis
when the roots in some sense are large, for if PI is very different from 0, then
PI will tend to be large and so will H. Some other criteria that have been
suggested are (a) L(, (b) LIJ(l + I), (c) max II' and (d) min Ii' In each case
we reject the null hypothesis if the criterion exceeds some specified number.

8.6.2. The Lawley-Hotelling Trace Criterion

Let K be the matrix such that KGK' =1 [G=K-I(K')-I, or G- I =K'K]
and so (4) holds. Then the sum of the roots can be written
p
(6) 1: I j = tr L = tr KHK'
i=1

= tr HK' K = tr HG - 1 .

This criterion was suggested by Lawley (938), Bartlett (939), and Hotelling
(1947), (1951). The test procedure is to reject the hypothesis if (6) is greater
than a constant depending on p, m, and n.
8.6 OTHER CRITERIA FOR TESTING THE LINEAR HYPOTHESIS 329

The general distribution t of tr HG - I cannot be characterized as easily as

that of Up,m,n' In the case of p=2, Hotelling (1950 obtained an explicit
e.<pression for the distribution of tr HG- I = II + 12 , A slightly different form
of this distribution is obtained from the density of the two roots II and I: in
Chapter 13, It is

(7) Pr{trHG- 1 :::;w} =/ .... ;(2+ ... )(111 -1,11-1)

J;r[Hm+n-1)] -~(n-l) [I 1 ]
- rUm)r(~n) (1 +w) /~'~;(~+"'): }(m - l),~(n --1) .

V',here I/a, b) is the incomplete beta function, that is, the integral of (3(y: a. b)
from 0 to x.
Constantine (1966) expressed the density of tr HG - 1 as an infinite series
in generalized Laguerre polynomials and as an infinite series in zonal
polynomials; these series, however, converge only for tr HG - I < 1. Davis
(1968) showed that the analytic continuation of these series satisfies a system
of linear homogeneous differential equations of order p. Davis (1970a,
1970b) used a solution to compute tables as given in Appendix B.
Under the null hypothesis, G is distributed as L'~"'-IZaZ~ (n = N - q) and
H is distributed as L~t..1 Y"Y,:, where the Zcr. and Y,J are independent, each
with distribution N(O, ~). Since the roots are invariant under the previously
specified linear transformation, we can choose K so that K 'IK' = 1 and let
G* = KGK' [= L(KZ"XKZ)'] and H* = KHK'. This is equivalent to assum-
ing at the outset that 'I = I.
Now

(8) · N
P11m 1 G = PI'1m -+
II
-I ~
i-.J Z Z'a Ci = 1,
N .... oo n .... x n q n a~l

This result follows applying the (weak) law of large numbers to each element
of (l/n)G,

(9) plim
n .... OO
t ZlaZ,a =
~ ,y=l J'ZlaZ,a = 01] '

Theorem 8.6.2. Let f( H) be a function whose discontinuities foml a set of

probability zero when H is distributed as L;'= I Y"Y,: with the ~ independent, each
with distribution N(O, n. Then the limiting distribution of f( NHG - I) is the
distn'bution off(H),

lLawIcy (I 93H) purp()f!ed 10 derive the exact di!.!nhulion, hlll the rCl'uh i ... in crror
330 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Proof This a straightforward application of a general theorem [for

IS
extlmple, Theorem 2 of Chernoff (1956)] to the effect that if the cdf of Xn
converges to that of X (at every continuity point of the latter) and if g(x) is
a function whose discontinuities form a set of probability 0 according to
the distribution of X, then the cdf of g(Xn ) converges to that of g(X). In our
case X'I consists of the components of Hand G, and X consists of the
components of H and I. •

Corollary 8.6.1. The limiting distribution of N tr HG- 1 or n tr HG- 1 is the

X ~~distribution with PQl degrees of freedom.

This follows from Theorem 8.6.2, because

p p q.
( 10) tr H= L hll = L L y,~.
1=1 1=1 V= 1

Ito (1956),(1960) developed asymptotic formulas, and Fujikoshi (1973)

extended them. Let wp. m. n( cd be the ex significance point of tr HG -\ ; that is,

~ 11 )

and let xl( ex) be the ex·significance point of the x2-distribution with k
degrees of freedom. Then

'(
(11) m~'l'.m.n( ex) = Xpm ex)
l[p+m+14(
+ 2n pm + 2 Xpm ex)

+(p-m+l)X;m(ex)] +O(n- 2 ).

Ito also gives the term of order n- 2 • See also Muirhead (1970). Davis
(1 ~70a), (1970b) evaluated the aCCUl :lcy of the approximation (12). Ito also
founJ

1 [p+m+l 2
(13) Pr{tltrHG-I~z}=Gpm(Z)- 2n pm+2 Z

+(p - m + l)gpm(Z)] + O(n- 2 ),

where G/z)= pr{xl ~z} and gk(Z) = (d/dz)Gk(z). Pillai (1956) suggested
another approximation to nWp,n,j ex), and Pillai and Samson (1959) gave
moments of tr HG -1. PilIai and Young (1971) and Krishnaiah and Chang
(972) evaluated the Laplace transform of tr HG- 1 and showed how to invert
8.6 OTHER CRITERIA FOR TESTING THE LINEAR HYPOTHESIS 331

the transform. Khatri and Pillai (1966) suggest an approximate distribution

based on moments. Pillai and Young (1971) suggest approximate distribu-
tions based on the first three moments.
Tables of the significance points are given by Grubbs (1954) for p = 2 and
by Davis (1970a) for p = 3 and 4, Davis (1970b) for p = 5, and Davis (1980)
for p = 6(1)10; approximate significance points have been given by Pillai
(t 960). Davis's tables are reproduced in Table B.2.

8.6.3. The Bartiett-Nanda-Pillai Trace Criterion

Another criterion, proposed by Bartlett (1939), Nanda (1950), and Pillai
(1955), is

~ I, ( _[
( 14) V= i-.J 1 + I, = tr L 1+ L)
i"" [ I

=trKHK'(KGK' +KHK')-[
= tr HK' [K( G + H)K'] -I K
-1
= tr H(G + H) ,

where as before K is such that KGK' = I and (4) holds. In terms of the roots
f = Ij(1 + It>, i = 1, ... , p, of
(15) IH-f(H+G)1 =0,

the criterion is Er.1 fi. In principle, the cdf, density, and moments under the
null hypothesis can be found from the density of the roots (Sec. 13.2.3),
p p
(16) c nftt(m-p-I) n
(= 1 1=1
(1 - It )~(n-p-I) n
i <J
eli - 1;),
where

7Ttp2fp[!(m + n)]
( 17)
C= fp( tn )fp( tm )fpdp)

for 1 >f[ > ... > fp > 0, and 0 otherwise. If m - p and n - p are odd, the
density is a polynomial in fI'.'.' fp. Then the density and cdf of the sum of
the roots are polynomials.
Many authors have written about the moments, Laplace transforms, densi-
ties, and cdfs, using various approaches. Nanda (1950) derived the distribu-
tion for p = 2,3,4 and m = p + 1. Pilla i (1954), (1956), (1960) and PilIai and
332 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Mijares (1959) calculated the fi~st four moments of V and proposed approxi-
mating the distribution by a beta distribution based on the first four mo-
ments. Pillai and Jayachandran (1970) show how to evaluate the moment
generating function as a weighted sum of determinants whose elements are
incomplete gamma functions; they derive exact densities for some special
cases and use them for a table of significance point!'. Krishnaiah and Chang
(1972) express the distributions as linear combinations of inverse Laplace
transforms of the products of certain double integrals and further develop
this technique for finding the distribution. Davis (1972b) showed that the
distribution satisfies a differential equation and showed the nature of the
solution. Khatri and Pillai () 968) obtained the (nonnul)) distributions in
series forms. The characteristic function (under the null hypothesis) was
given by James (1964). Pillai and Jayachandran (1967) found the nonnull
distribution for p = 2 and computed power functions. For an extensive
bibliography see Krishnaiah (1978).
We now turn to the asymptotic theory. It follows from Theorem 8.6.2 that
nV or NV has a limiting X2-distribution with pm degrees of freedom.
Let Up, Ill, / a) be defined hy

(18) Pr{tr H(H + G) -1 ~ Up ,III,II( a)} = a.

Then Davis (1970a), (1970b), Fujikoshi (1973), and Rothenberg (1977) have
shown that

2 1 [ p+m+l 4
(19) nUp,m,n(a) =Xpm(a) + 2n - pm +2 Xl'm(a)

+(p-m+ l)X;m(a)] +O(n-- 2 ).

Since we can write (for the likelihood ratio test)

we have the comparison

( 21) nWp,m.n ( a) _-nup,m,n ( a) + ~ + m+2

2n . p pm + 1 Xpm
4 ( a) + O( n
-2).

1 p +m + 1 4 ( ( -2
(22) nUp,m,n(a)=nup.m.n(a) + 2n' pm+2 Xpm a)+O n ).
M OTHER CRITERIA FOR TESTING THE LINEAR HYPOTHESIS 333

An asymptotic expansion [Muirhead (1970), Fujikoshi (1973)] is

(2'3) Pr{nV~z} = Gpn (.2.) + ~~ [em -p-l)Gpm(Z)

+2(p + l)Gpm+Z(Z) - (p +m + 1)Gpm +4(Z)] + O(n 2).
Higher-order terms are given by Muirhead and Fujikoshi.

Tables. Pillai (1960) tabulated 1% and 5% significance points of V for

p = 2(1)8 based on fitting Pearson CUIVes (i.e., beta distributions with ad-
justed ranges) to the first four moments. Mijares (1964) extended the tables
to p = 50. Table B.3 of ~;ome significance points of (n + m)V/m =
tr(1/m)H{[l/(n +m)](G +H)}-l is from Concise Statistical Tables, and was
computed on the same basis as P ill ai's. "Schuurman, Krishnaiah, and
Chattopodhyay (1975) gave exact significance points of V for p = 2(1)5; a
more extensive table is in their technical report (ARL 73-0008). A compari-
son of some values with those of Concise Statistical Tables (Appendix B)
shows a maximum difference of 3 in the third rlecimal place.

8.6.4. The Roy Maximum Root Criterion

Any characteristic root of HG - I can be used as a test criterion. Roy (1953)
proposed / (, the maximum characteristic root of HG - I, on the basis of his
union-intersection principle. The test procedure is to reject the null hypoth-
esis if / I is greater than a certain number. or equivalently, if fl = / I/O + II)
= R is greater than a number rp • III • II (ct} which satisfies

(24)

The density of the roots fl"'" fp for p ~ m under the null hypothesis is
given in (16). The cdf of R = fl' Pr{fl ~f*}, can be obtained from the joint
density by integration over the range 0 ~fp ~ ... ~fl 5,f*. If m - p and
n - p are both odd, the density of fl"'" fp is a polynomial; then the cdf of
fl is a polynomial in f* and the density of fl is a polynomial. The only
difficulty in carrying out the integration is keeping track of the different
terms.
Roy [(1945), (1957), Appendix 9] developed a method of integration that
results in a cdf that is a linear combination of products of univariate beta
densities and 1eta edfs. The cdf of fl for p = 2 is
<25) Pr{fl~f}=If(m-l,n-1)

-
r;rl'!(m
2
+ n - 1)] ~!m-I)(l-f);(n-!)l
1
[.t(rn - 1) l(1[ - 1)]
r(tm)rOn) r f :2 '2 .
334 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

This is derived in Section 13.5. Roy (1957), Chapter 8, gives the cdfs for
p = 3 and 4 also.
By Theorem 8,6.2 the limiting distribution of the largest characteristic root
of nHG·· 1 , NHG- 1 , IlH(H+G)-·, or NH(H+Gr l is the distribution of
the largest characteristic root of H having the distribution W(J, m). The
dcnsitks or the roots of H are given in Section 13.3. ]n principle, the
marginal density of the largest root can be obtained from the joint density by
integration, but in actual fact the integration is more difficult than that for
the density of the roots of HG - I or H( H + G)- J.
The literature on this subject is too extensive to summarize here. Nanda
(1948) obtained the distribution for p = 2, 3, 4, and 5. Pillai (1954), (1956),
(1965), (1967) treated the distribution under the null hypothesis. Other
results were obtained by Sugiyama and Fukutomi (1966) and Sugiyama
(1967). Pillai (1967) derived an appropriate distribution as a linear combina-
tion of incomplete beta functions. Davis (1972a) showed that the density of a
single ordered root satisfies a differential equation and (1972b) derived a
recurrence relation for it. Hayakawa (1967),· Khatri md Pillai (1968), Pillai
and Sugivama (1969), and Khatri (1972) treated th.'! noncentral case. See
Krishnaiah (1978) for more references.

Tables. Tables of the percentage points have been calculated by Nanda

(1951) and Foster and Rees (1957) for p = 2, Foster (19~7) for p = 3, Foster
(1958) for p = 4, and Pillai (1960) for p = 2(1)6 on the basis of an approxima-
tion. [See also Pillai (1956),(1960),(1964),(1965),(1967).] Heck (1960) pre-
sented charts of the significance points for p = 2(1)6. Table BA of signifi-
cance points of nl./m is from Concise Statistical Tables, based on the
approximation by Pillai (1967).

8.6.5. Comparison of Powers

The four tests that have been given most consideration are those based on
Wilks's U, the Lawley-Hotelling W, the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai V, and Roy's
R. To guide in the choice of one of these four, we would like to compare
power functions. The first three have been compared by Rothenberg on the
b,lsis of the asymptotic expansions of their distributions in the nonnull case.
Let vi', ... , v~'J be the roots of

( 26)

The distribution of

( 27)
8.6 OTHER CRITERIA FOR TESTING THE LINEAR HYPOTHESIS 335

is the nonceniral X 2-distribution with pm degrees of freedom and noncen-

trality parameter LF= 1 vt. As N ~ 00, the quantity (l/n)G or (l/N)G
approaches 1: with probability one. If we let N ~ 00 and A 11.2 is unbounded,
the noncentrality parameter grows indefinitely and the power approaches 1.
It is more informative to consider a sequence of alternatives such that the
powers of the different tests are different. Suppose PI = P~ is a sequence of
matrices such that as N ~ 00, (P~ - P~)A 1l.2(P~ - ~)' approaches a limit
and hence v{" ... , VpN approach some limiting values VI"." vp ' respectively.
Then the limiting distribution of N tr HG - I, n tr HG -1, N tr H( H + G) ~ 1 ,
and n tr H(H + G)-1 is the noncentral X2-distribution with pm degrees of
freedom and noncentrality paraI.1eter Li= 1 Vi' Similarly for - N log U and
-nlogU.
Rothenberg (1977) has shown under the above conditions that

(29) pr{tr HG-l ~ wp,m,n( a)}

~ l-G [xi (a) I~ VI]

pm m

+ E v gpm
j
2
+6 [ X;m( a)]
i=I
336 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

(30) pr{trH(H+G)-12Up "m,n(ex)}

= 1- Gpm[X;m( ex) ,E Vi]

,-I

p
+ L vlgpm + 6 [ X;m( ex)]
i= I

where Glxly) is the noncentral X2-distribution with f degrees of freedom

and noncentrality parameter y, and g/x) is the (central) X2-density with f
degrees of freedom. The leading terms are the noncentral X2-distribution;
the power functions of the three tests agree to this order. The power
functions of the two trace tests differ from that of the likelihood ratio test by
±gpm + 8 [ X;m( ex )]j(2n) times

(31)
~ 2_ P+m +1 (~ )2 ~ ( __ )2 _ p( P - 1)( P + 2) _ 2
i-.J V, +2 i-.J V, = i-.J V, V pm + 2 V ,
i=1 pm i=1 i=1

where v= '[.r=1 v,/p. This is positive if

0'" (p-1){p+2)
(32) -=->
V pm+2

whe,re o'} = '[.1= I( Vi - vi Ip is the (population) variance of VI ••• , vp; the

left-hand side of (32) is the coefficient of variation. If the VI'S are relatively
variable in the sense that (32) holds, the power of the Lawley-Hotelling trace
test is greater than that of the likelihood ratio test, which in turn is greater
than that of the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test (to order lin); if the
inequality (32) is reversed, the ordering of power is reversed.
The differences between the powers decrease as n increases for fixed
VI"'" vp- (However, this comparison is not very meaningful, because increas-
ing n decreases p~ - P'r
and increases Z'Z.)
A number of numerical comparisons have been made. Schatzoff (1966b)
and Olson (1974) have used Monte Carlo methods; Mikhail (1965), PiHai and
Jayachandran (1967), and Lee (1971a) have used asymptotic expansions of
8e7 TESTS AND CONFIDENCE REGIONS 337

distributions. All of these results agree with Rothenberg's. Among these

three procedures, the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test is to be preferred if
the roots are roughly equal in the alternative. and the Lawley- HoteHing
trace is more powerful when the roots are substantially unequal. Wilks's
likelihood ratio test seems to come in second best; in a sense it is maximin.
As noted in Section K6.4, the Roy largest root has a limiting distribu-
tion which is not a x 2-distribution under the null hypothesb and is not a
noncentral x 2-distribution under a sequence of alternative hypotheses. Hence
the comparison of Rothenberg cannot be extended to this casee In fact, the
distributions .n the nonnull case are difficult to evaluate. However, the
Monte Carlo results of Schatzoff (1966b) and Olson (1974) are clear-cut.
The maximum root test has greatest power if the alternative is one-dimen-
sional. that is, if V2 == .•. "'" vp "'" Oe On the other hand, if the alternative is not
one-dimensional, then the maximum root test is inferior.
These test procedures tend to be robust. Under the null hypothesis the
limiting distribution of PI - pr suitably normalized is normal with mean 0
and covariances the same as if X were normal, as long as its distribution
satisfies some condition such as bounded fourth-order moments. Then in =
(lIN)G converges with probability onee The limiting distribution of each
criterion suitably normalized is the same as if X were normaL Olson (1974)
studied the robustness under departures from covarianc~ homog~nl!ily ,IS
well as departures from normality. His conclusion was that the t'NO trace tests
and the likelihood ratio test were rather robust, and the maximum root teoSt
least robust. See also Pillai and Hsu (t 979).
Berndt and Savin (1977) have noted that

(33) tr H ( H + G) - :s log V-I

I :S tr HG - !,

(See Problem 8.19.) If the X2 significance point is used. then a larger

criterion may lead to rejection While a smaller one may not.

8.7. TESTS OF HYPOTHESES ABOUT MATRICES OF REGRESSION

COEFFICIENTS AND CONFIDENCE REGIONS
,
8.7.1. Testing Hypotbeses
Suppose we are given a set of vector observations xl>"" x,.. with accompany-
ing fixed vectors ZI"'" ZN' where x .. is an observation from N(pz". I l. We
let P = (PI pz) and z~ = (Z~)I, z;)'). where ~l and z~)' have q! (= q - q~)
columns, The null hypothesis is

(1) H: PI = p~,
338 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

whcre ~ is a specified matrix. Suppose the desired significance level is cr. A

test procedure is to compute

(2)

and compare this number with Up.q,.l'( cr), the cr significance point of the
Up.q,.n-distribution. For p = 2, ... ,10 and even m, Table 1 in Appendix B can
be used. For m = 2, .... 10 and even p the same table can be used with m
replaced by p and p replaced by m. eM as given in the table remains
unchanged.) For p and m both odd, interpolation between even values of
either p or m will give !iufficient accuracy for most purposes. For reasonably
larg~ II. the <l~ymptotic theory can be used. An equivalent procedure is to
calculate Pr{Up . m . I , :::;; U}; if this is less than cr, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Alternatively one can use the Lawley-Hotelling trace criterion
l
(3) W= tr (Niw - Ni n)( Ninr
= tr (P I n - P~ ) All 2 ( PIn - pr)' ( N In) -1 ,
the Pillai trace criterion

(4) v = tr (Niw - Ni n ) (N iw) -I

= tr ( it
..... w - PI*) All.:} (it..... 10 - PI*)'(N~"',v'
)-1
or the Roy maximL.m root criterion R, where R is the maximum root of

These criteria can be referred to the appropriate tables in Appendix B.

We outline an approach to computing the criterion. If we let Ya = x a -
p~ z~.l). then Y.• can be considered as an obseIVation from N(4.z a , "I), where
~ = (L\ I L\ 2) = (PI - P7 P2)' Then the null hypothesis is H: L\ I = 0, and

(6 )

( 7)

Thus the problem of testing the hypothesis PI = p~ is equivalent to testing

the hypothesis L\ I = 0, where ,sYa = L\ za' Hence let us suppose the problem
is testing the hypothesis PI = 0. Then NIw = LXaX~ - P2wA22P;w and
8.7 TESTS AND CONFIDENCE REGIONS 339

Nin = LXaX~ -l3nAP;~. We have discussed in Section 8.2.2 the computa-

A A, A A A,

tion of PnAPn and hence NI n. Then PzwA2Zi32w can be computed in a

similar manner If the method is laid out as

(8)

the first qz rows and columns of A* and of A** are the same as the result of
applying the forward solution to the left-hand side of

(9)

and the first qz rows of C* and C** are the same as the result of applying
the forward solution to the right-hand side of(9). Thus t3zwAzZt32w = CiC!*',
where C*, = (C;' Ci t) and C**, = (C2*' Ci* t).
The method implies a method for computing a determinant. In Section
A.S of the Appendix it is shown that the result of the forward solution is
FA = A*, Thus IFI ·IAI = IA* L Since the determinant of a triangular matrix
n
is t he product of its diagonal elements, IFI = 1 and IA I = IA * I = 7= I air.
This result holds for any positive definite matrix in place of A (with a suitable
modification of F) and hence can be used to compute INInl and INI«J

8.7.2. Confidence Regions Based on U

We have considered tests of hypotheses fh = ~, where P~ is specified. In
the usual way we can deduce from the family of tests a confidence region for
PI' From the theory given before, we know that the probability is 1 - a of
drawing a sample so that

(10)

Thus if we make the confidence-region statement that 131 satisfies

(11 ) A A -) (A _)I~U'Jqn(a),
INI. n + (piH - PI A lI . z Pin - 13; , , I'

where (11) is interpreted as an inequality on PI = PI' then the probability is

1 - a of drawing a sample such that the statement is true.

Theorem 8.7.1. The region (11) in the 131-space is a confidence region for
131 with confidence coefficient 1 - a.
340 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Usually the set of PI

satisfying (11) is difficult to visualize, However, the
inequality can be used to determine whether trial matrices are included in
the region.

8.7.3. Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Based on the

Lawley-Hotelling Trace "-
Each test procedure implies a set of confidence regions. The Lawley-HoteU-
ing trace criterion can be used to develop simultaneous confidence intervals
for linear combinations of elements of Pl' A confidence region with confi-
dence coefficient 1 - ex is

To derive the confidence bounds we generalize Lemma 5.3.2.

Lemma 8.7.1. For positive definite mati ices A and G,

(13) Itr <It/y! ~ ftr A -1 <It/G<It ftr AyrG -I y ,

Proof Let b = tr <It'Y/tr A-I <It'G<It. Then

( 14) 0 s; tr A ( Y - bG <itA - I ) G - ! ( Y - bG <It A - I )

I

= tr AY'G- I Y - b tr <It'Y - b tr y'q;, + b 2 tr <It'G<ltA 1

=trAY'G-1y- (tr<lt,y)2
tr A -1 <ltJG<It '

which yields (13). •

Now (12) and (13) imply that

(15) Itr <It'Pln - tr <ltJi§,1 = Itr <It'(Ptn - i§1) I

s; tr Aj/2<1t' Nin<lt'tr AII'2(~Hl - PI )/( Ni n ) -1 (PIP -, i§,)
::; vtr Ai/2<1t' NIn<lt VWp,m,A ex)
holds for all p X m matrices <It. We assert that

(16) tr <It'pw -..j Ntr A~I:2<1t'In<lt ,jwp. m. n{ ex) s; tr <It'i§l

~ tr <It 'PIn + ,;N tr Ail~2<1t/in<lt ,jwp,m,n( ex)

holds for all <It with confidence 1 - ex.
8.7 TESTS AND CONFIDENCE REGIONS 341

The confidence region (12) can he explored hy use of (16) for various «1>. If
cPik = 1 for some pair ([, K) and 0 for other elements, then (6) gives an
interval for {3]K' If cP'k = 1 for a pair ([, K), -1 for (I, L), and 0 otherwise,
the interval pertains to {3/K - {3ILI the difference of coefficients of two
independent variables. If cP,k = 1 for a pair (I, K), 1 for (J, K). and 0
otherwise, one obtains an interval for {3]K - (3jK' the difference of coeffi-
cients for two dependent variables.

8.7.4. Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Based on the Roy Maximum

Root Criterion
A confidence region with confidence 1 - ex based on the maximum root
criterior. is

(17)

where ch ICC) denotes the largest characteristic root of C. We can derive

simultaneous confidence bounds from (17). From Lemma 5.32, we find for
any vectors a and b

(18)

[~I(131H - pJb]2 = {[(13111- pl)'a] 'b}~

.s; [(13IH - p.)'a] 'A 1I . 2 [(13ul - Pl)'a] 'b'A,/2 b
= a'(PIH - p.)A II 2(13111 - pl)'a. 'G 'b'A- I b
a'Ga a a 11-1

.s; ch I [ (13m - PI) A 11 :1 (Pill - PI)' G - I I 'a I Ga' b' A. ill:! b

with probability 1 - ex; the second inequality follows from Theorem A.2.4 of
the Appendix. Then a set of confidence intervals on all linear comhinations
a'p i b holding with confidence I - ex is

The linear combinations are a'plb=L!' ILh' la/{3/lob", If al=L ar=O.

i,* 1, and b l = 1, bh = 0, h,* 1, the linear combination is simply {31l' It
a l = 1, a i = O. i,* 1, and b l = I, b~ = - L b't = 0, h '* 1.2. the linear combi·
nation is {3u - {31~'
342 TESTING THE GENERALUNEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

We can compare these intervals with (16) for <I> = ab', which is of rank 1.
The term suhtracted from and added to tr <I>'PtH =a'Plnb is the square root
of

(20) 11'//,11",,( (I:' ) 'tr A11~~ ba'Gab' = wl/,II,.II( a) ·a'Ga· b IA 11~2 b.

This is greater than the term subtracted and added to a'P1ob in (19) because
I~'p.m,"(a), pertaining to the sum of the roots, is greater than 'p.m.n(a),
relating to one root. The bounds (16) hold for all p x m matrices <1>, while
(19) holds only for matrices ab' of rank L
Mudholkar (1966) gives a very general method of constructing simultane-
ous confidence intervals based on symmetric gauge functions. Gabriel (1969)
relates confidence bounds to simultaneous test procedures. Wijsman (1979)
showed that under certain conditions the confidence sets based on the
maximum root are smallest. [See also Wijsman (1980).]

8.8. TESTING EQUALITY OF MEANS OF SEVERAL NORMAL

DISTIUBUTIONS WITH COMMON COVARIANCE MATRIX

III univariate analysis it is well known that many hypotheses can be put in the
form of hypotheses concerning regression coefficients. The same is true for
the corresponding multivariate cases. As an example we consider testing the
hypothesis that the means of, say, q normal distributions with a common
covariance matrix are equal.
Let y~'l be an observation from N(fL(r), I), a = 1, ... , N{, i = 1, ... , q. The
null hypothesis is

(1) H : fL<l) = ... = fL(q).

To put the problem in the form considered earlier ir this chapter, let

( 2) X=(x 1 x 1 "'x,
"I
x N1+I .. ·x)
N
= (y(1)y(2)
1 2
"'y(l)y(1) ... y(q))
NI 1 Nq

with N = NI + .. , +Nq • Let

(3) Z = (Zl Z2 ZN 1 ZNI+I ZN)

0 0
0 0 0 I 0
0 0 0 0 0
=

0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
8.8 TESTING EQUALITY OF MEANS 343

that is, Zia = 1 if NI + ... +Ni - I < a 5, NI + ... +N,• and zia = 0 otherwise,
for i = 1, ... , q - 1, and Zqa = 1 (all a). Let 13 (PI P2), where

PI = ( ....(1) - ....(q), ••• , ....(q-I) - (q»),

....
(4)
131 = ....(q).

Then xa is an obseIVation from N(Pza' 1:), and the nun hypothesis is PI = O.

Thus we can use the above theory for finding the criterion for testing the
hypothesis.
We have

Nl 0 0 NI
0 N2 0 N2
N
(5) A= E zaza' =
a=1 0 0 Nq- l Nq_l
Nl N2 Nq_ 1 N

N
(6) C= E xaz~ = (Ey~l) Ey~2) ." Ey~q-') f2y~i») .
a~1 a a a l.a

say, and

(7)

= Ey~)y~I)' - Njj'
i. a

= E (y~i) _y)(y~i) -y)'.

E. a

A A A A I

For In. we use the formula NIn. = LXaX~ - PnApn = LXaX~ CA -IC'
Let

1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
(8) D=
0 0 1 0
-1 -1 -1 1
344 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHB.~IS; MANOVA

then

1 0 0 0
o 1 0 0
(9)
o 0 I 0
1 1 1 1

Thus

(10) CA-1C' =CD'D-1'A ID-IDC'

=CD'(DAD') 1 DC'

-1
N, o
o o
= ( Lyil ) ... Ly~q»)
a ex
o o

= L Niyi)j(l)' •
i

(11)
I, ex

= L (y~) - j(t»)(yi')- jU»)'.

i. "

It will be seen that Iw is the estimator of 'I when

...(1) = ... = ...(q) and In
is the' wciJhted average of the estimators of "!; based on the separate
samples.
When the null hypothesis is true, INinl / INiwl is distributed as Up . q l. n'
where n = N - q. Therefore, the rejection region .'1t the a significance level is

(12)
8.8 TESTING EQUALITY OF MEANS 345

The left-hand side of (12) is (11) of Section 8.3, and

(13) Niw - Nin = ,!-=y~/)y~/)' - Njj' - (EY~)Y~/)' - EN;jif/)ji(Ij,)

I,ll 1.(1' I

as implied by (4) and (5) of Section 8.4. Here H has the distrihution
W(~, q - I). It will he seen that when p = I, this test reduces to the usual
F-test

"N (-(I)
LJ/Y
__
Y
)2 II
(14) _ ))2 . q -1 > Fq - l . a}.
(Y~ )- Y<'
II (

.
We give an example of the analysis. The data are taken from Barnard's
study of Egyptian skulls (1935). The 4 ( = q) populations are Late Pre dynastic
Ci = 1), Sixth to Twelfth (i = 2), Twelfth to Thirteenth (i = 3), and Ptolemaic
Dynasties (i = 4). The 4 (= p) measurements (i.e., components of Y~/) are
maximum breadth, basialveolar length, nasal height, and basibregmatic height.
The numbers of obsetvations are Nl = 91, N2 = 162, N;. = 70, N~ = 75. The
data are sumn arized as

133.582418 134.265432 134.371429 135.306667)

98.307692 96.462963 95.857143 95.040000
=
50.835165 51.148148 50.100000 :'2.093333 '
133.000000 134.882716 133.642857 131.466667

(16) Nin

_
9661.997470
445.573301
445.573301
9073.115027
1130.623900
1239.211990 2255.812722
1
2 148.584 :2 10

- ( 1130.623900 1239.211 990 3938.320351 1271 .054662 .

2148.584210 2255.812722 1271.054662 8741.508829

From these data we find

9785.178098 214.197666 1217.929248 1019.820216

214.197666 9559.460890 ll31.716372 2381. 126 040
1217 .929248 1131.716372 4088.731856 1133.473898
2019.820216 2381.126 040 1133.473898 9)~2.24~ 720
346 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

We shall use the likelihood ratio test. The ratio of determinants is

IN~nl
5
(18) U= = 2.4269054 X 10 = 0.f214344.
INIJ 2.9544475 X 10 5

Here N = 398, n = 394, P = 4, and q = 4. Thus k = 393. Since n is very large,

we may assume -k logU4.3.394 is distributed as x 2 with 12 degrees of
freedom (when the null hypothesi~ is true). Here - k log U = 77.30. Since the
1% point of the Xr2-distribution is 26.2, the hypothesis of j.L(l) = j.L(2) = j.L(~) =
j.L(4) is rejected. t

8.9. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

The univariate analysis of variance has a direct generalization for vector

variables leading to an analysis of vector sums of squares (i.e., sums such as
L.X 0' x~). In fact, in the preceding section this generalization was considered
for an analysis of variance problem involving a single classification.
As another example consider a two-way layout. Suppose that we are
interested in the question whether the column effects are zero, We shall
review the analysis for a scalar variable and then show the analysis for a
vector variable, Let y,}' i = 1,.", r, j = 1"." c, be a set of rc random
variables, We assume that

( 1) i= I, ... ,r, j=l" .. ,c,

with the restrictions

r c
(2) E AI = E lI} = 0,
i'" 1 } '" 1

that the variance of Y;} is a 2, and that the Y;} are independently normally
distributed. To test that column effects are zero is to test that

( 3) v·=
} 0, j=1" .. ,c.

This problem can be treated as a problem of regression by the introduction

tThe above computations were given by Bartlell (J947).

8.9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 347

of dummy fixed variates. Let

(4) Zoo .1..J = 1,

k =i,

=0, k *- i,
ZOk,Ij = 1, k=j,

=0, k*-j.

Then (0 can be written

,. c
(5) ct"Y;j = /-LZ!X),lj + E AkZkO,iJ + E VkZOk,lj'
k-l k=1

The hypothesi::, is that the coefficients of ZOk. iJ are zero, Since the matrix of
fixed variates here,

ZOJ,ll ZOO,FC

ZlO,ll zlO,rc

(6) Z20,ll Z20,rc

ZOe. II ZOc. re

is singular (for example, row 00 is the sum of rows 10,20, ... , rO), one must
elaborate the regression theory. When one does, one finds that the test
criterion indicated by the regression theory is the usual F-test of analysis of
variance.
Let

y 1 ~y.
.. = -rc i..J IJ'
i.j

(7)
348 TEST] NG THE GENERAL LlNEAR HYPOTHES1S; MANOVA

and let

a= "( y
'-' I)
_ yI. _ y . }. + y •• )2
i. i

= "y2-e"y2-r'y2.+rey2
'-' I} '-' I. '-'.} •• '
t.j I j
(8)
b=rE(y:}-y..)2
j

=r Ey2. } -rey2
., .
}

Then the F-statistic is given by

(9) F=!!.'
a
{e-l){r-l}
e 1 .

Under the null hypothesis, this has the F-distribution with e - land (r - 1).
(c - 1) degrees of freedom. The likelihood ratio criterion for the hypothesis
is the rel2 power of

a 1
(1O)
a+5 = 1 + {{e -l)/[{r -l){e - l)]}F'

Now let us turn to the multivariate anal)sis of variance. We have a set of

p-dimensional random ve::tors y,}' i = 1, ... , r, j = 1, ... , e, with expected
values (1), where IJ., the X's, and the v's are vectors, and with covariance
matrix 'I., and they are independently normally distributed. Then the same
algebra may be used to reduce this problem to the regression problem. We
define r:" r:}
Y, , , by (7) and

A= E (Y,J - Ii, - Y. j + YJ(Y,) - Y,. - Y,} + Y..)'

i.J

= E y,} Y,~ - e E Y" Ii'. - r E Y. }Y: j + re Y.. Y:. '

i, J i j
( 11)
B = r E (Y,) - Y..)(Y.} - YJ'
j
8.9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 349

Table 8.1
Varieties
Location M S V T P Sums
UF 81 105 120 110 98 514
81 82 80 87 84 414
W 147 142 151 192 146 778
100 116 112 148 108 584
M 82 77 78 131 90 458 .
103 105 117 140 130 595
C 120 121 124 141 125 631
99 62 96 126 76 459
GR 99 89 69 89 104 450
66 50 97 62 80 355
D 87 77 79 102 96 441
68 67 67 92 94 338
Sums 616 611 621 765 659 3272
517 482 569 655 572 2795

A statistic analogous to (0) is

( 12)
IAI
IA+BI'

Under the null hypothesis, this has the distribution of U for p, n = (r - 1).
(c - 1) and ql = C - 1 given in Section 8.4. In order for A to be nonsingular
(with probab.ility 1), we must require p $ (r - 1Xc - 1).
As an example we use data first published by Immer, Hayes, and Powers
(1934), and later used by Fisher 0947a), by Yates and Cochran (1938), and by
Tukey (1949). The first component of the observation vector is the barley
yield in a given year; the second component is the same measurement made
the following year. Column indices run over the varieties of barley, and row
indices over the locations. The data are given in Table 8.1 [e.g., ~! in the
upper left-hand comer indicates a yield of 81 in each year of variety M in
location UF]. The numbers along the borders are sums.
We consider the square of 047, 100) to be

100) = (21,609 14,700)

14,700 10,000 .
350 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Then

( 13) " ' (380,944 315,381)

~ y,} y,} = 315381
I.} ,
277 , 625 '

( 14) E(6Y )(6Y ),=(2,157,924 1,844,346)

}
.} .} 1,844,346 1,579,583'

"(5f )(5Y)' = (1,874,386 1,560,145 )

~ l. I. 1,560,145 1,353,727 '
I

(16) (30Y )(30Y )' = (10,750,984 9,145,240)

.. .. 9,145,240 7.812,025 .

Then the error Sum of squares is

( 17) A = (3279 802 )

802 4017'

t he row sum of squares is

(18) 5"(f _ Y )(f. _ Y )' = (18,011 7.188 )

~ l. I... 7,188
.. 10,345 '
J

and the column sum of squares is

(19) 2788 2550)

B = ( 2550 2863'

The test criterion is

3279 802\
( 20)
IAI 1 17-io =
= .;--80_2_4_0_ 0 4107
IA+BI 6U67 33521 . .
13352 6880

This result is to be compared with the significant point for U2• 4• 20 • Using the
result of Section 8.4, we see that

1 - ';0.4107 . 19 = 2.66
';0.4107

is to be compared with the significance point of F~. 38' This is significant at

the 5% level. Our data show that there are differerces between varieties.
8.9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE :;51

Now let us see that each F-test in the univariate analysis of variance has
analogous tests in the multivariate analysis of variance. In the linear hypothe-
sis model for the univariate analysis of variance, one assumes that the
random variables YI , ... , YN have expected values that are linear combina-
tions of unknown parameters

(21)

where the {3's are the parameters and the z's are the known coefficients. The
variables {Ya } are assumed to be normally and independently distributed with
common variance (J" 2. In this model there are a set of linear combinations,
say L~", I Yia Ya , where the y's are known, such that

(22)

is distributed as (J"2X 2 with n degrees of freedom. There is another set of

linear combinations, say La <Pga Ya , where the <p's are known, such that

~23)

is distributed as (J" 2x 2 with m degrees of freedom when the null hypothesis is

true and as (J"2 times a noncentral X 2 when the null hypothesis is not true;
and in either case b is distributed independently of a. Then

b n ECa.BYal{, n
(24) a m Eda.B ~ l{, . m

has the F-distribution with m and n degrees of freedom, respectively, when

the null hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis is that certain {3's are zero.
In the multivariate analysis of variance, f l , ... ,fN are vector variables with
p components. The expected value of fa is given by (21) where I3 g is a vector
of p parameters. We assume that the {fa} are normally and independently
distributed with common covariance matrix ~. The linear combinations
LYia fa can be formed for the vectors. Then

(25)
352 TESTING THE GENERAL UNEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

has the distribution W(~, 11). When the null hypothesis is true,

(26)

has the distribution W(~, m), and B is indeper dent of A. Then

(27)
IA\
IA+BI

has the Up,l1i'.n-distribution.

The argument for the distribution of a and b involves showing that
GLa'YiaYa = 0 and GLa<Pgar: = 0 when certain {3's are equal to zero as
specified hy the nlill hypothesis (as identities in the unspecified {3's). Clearly
this argument holds for the vector case as well. Secondly, one argues, in the
univariate case, that there is an orthogonal matrix 'It = (l/!,,{3) sllch that when
the transformation Y/3 = La l/t3a Za is made
n
a= L d a/3 ~ay ~/3fjZyZfj = L Z;,
a,/3,y,fj a-L
(28) n+m
b= L C tr {3l/!,ry %iiZyZ" = L Z;.
a.~.y.fj a-n+l

Because the transformation is orthogonal, the {Z",} are independently and

normally distributed with common variance fT2. Since the Za' a = 1, ... \ n,
must be linear combinations of La'Yiar: and since Za' a = n + 1, ... , n + m,
must be linear combinations of La <PgaYa' they must have means zero (under
the null hypothesis). Thus a / fT2 and b / fT 2 have the stated independent
X 2-distributions.
In the multivariate case the transformation Y/3 = La ~/3aZa is used, where
Y/3 and Za are vectors. Then
n
A= L da/3~ay~/3fjZyZ~ = L ZaZ~,
a,/3,y,B a"",l
(29) n+m
B= L C a/3 ~ay ~/3B Zy Zs L ZaZ~
a./3,y,B a-n+l

because it follows from (28) that La. "d a /3 ~ay ~"B = 1, 'Y = D ~ n, and = 0
otherwise, and La. /3 ca {3l/1..,y ~{3B = 1, n + 1 ~ 'Y D =:; n + m, and = 0 other-
wise. Since W" is orthogonal, the {Za) are ind~pendently normally distributed
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 353

with covariance matrix :~. The same argument shows ttz a = 0, a = 1, ....
n + m, under the null hypothesis. Thus A and B are independently dis-
tributed according to W(~. n) and W(~, m), respectively.

8.10. SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS

8.10.1. Admissibility of Invariant Tests

In this chapter we have considered several tests of i:1 linear hypothesis which
are invariant with respect to transformations that leave the null hypothesis
invariant. We raise the question of which invariant tests are good tests. In
parliculal' we ask for admissible proccthm:,,,;, lhat is, procedures that cannot
be improved on in the sense of smaller probabilities of Type I and/or Type
n error, The competing tests are not necessarily invariant. Clearly, if an
invariant test is admissible in the dass or all tests, it i!oi admililiibk in the cla~s
of invaria nt tests.
Testing the general linear hypothesis ali treated here i~ a geIlt:ralilation of
testing the hypothesis concerning one mean vector as treated in Chapter 5.
The invariant procedures in Chapter 8 arc generalizations of the T':!·test.
One way of showing a procedure is admissible is to display a priqr distribu-
tion on the parameters such that the Bayes procedure is a given test
procedure. This approach requires some ingenuity in constructing the prior,
but the verification or the properly given the prior is ~traightfl)lVt'ard. Prob-
lems 8.26 and 8.27 show that the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace criterion Vand
Wilks's likelihood ratio criterion U yield admissible tests. The disadvantage
of this approach to admissibility is that one must invent a prior distribution
for each procedure; a general theorem does not cover many cases.
The other approach to admiSSibility is to apply Stein'S theorem (Theorem
5.6.5), which yields general results. The invariant tests can be stated in terms
of the roo~s of the determinantal equation

( 1) IH-A(H+G)I=o,

where H = ~IAIl'2~~ = W1W~ and G = Nin = W)V.~, There is also a matrix

~ (or Wz) associated with the nuisance parameters 13:::, For convenience, we
define the canonical form in the foHowing notation, Let WI = X (p x mI.
W 2 =Y(pXr), W3 =Z(pXn), cfX=E, cfY=H, and cfZ=O:thecolumns
are independently normally distributed with covariance matrix ~. The null
hypothesis is s: "'"
0, and the alternative hypothesis is E. O. '*
The usual tests are given in terms of the (nonzero) roots of

(2) lxx' - A(ZZ' +XX')I = lxx' - A(U- tl") I = o.

354 TESTING THE UENERALUNI:.AR HYPULHbL::>; MANUvA

where U = XX' + YY' + ZZ'. Expect for roots that are identically zero, the
roots of (2) coincide with the nonzero characteristic roots of X'(U - yy,)-l X.
Let V= (X, Y, U) and

(3) M(V) =X'(U-fY,)-L X .

The vector of ordered characteristic roots of M(V) is denoted by

(4)

where AJ 2 .. , ~ Am ~ O. Since the inclusion of zero roots (when m > p)

causes no trouble in the sequel, we assume that the tests depend on
MM(V».
The admissibility of these tests can be stated in terms of the geometric
characteristics of the acceptance regions. Let

R~ = {AERmIAJ 2 A2 ~ ... 2 Am 20},

(5)
R: = {A E Rml AI ~ 0,. ", Am 2 o}.
It seems reasonable that if a set of sample roots leads to acceptance of the
null hypothesis, then a set of smaller roots would .1S well (Figure 8.2),

Definition 8.10.1. A region A c R~ is monotone if A EA, v E R":, , and

VI .s; Ar • i = 1, ... , m, imply v EA.

Definition 8.10.2. For A cR~ the extended region A* is

l6) A* = U {(x.,,-(IP .. ·.xrr(m))'lxEA}.

'IT

~",,'here 7T ranges over all permutations of (1, ...• m).

Figure 8.2. A monotone acceptance region.

8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 355

The main result, first proved by Schwartz (1967), is the following theorem:

Theorem 8.10.1. If the region A C R/~ is monotone and if the extended

region A* lS closed and convex, then A is the acceptance region of an admissible
test.

Another characterization of admissible tests is given in terms of majoriza-

tion.

Definition 8.10.3. A vector X = (A J , ••• , Am)' weakly majorizes a vector

v = (v p .•• , V m)' if

where A.ril and v[/I' i = 1, ... , m, are the coordinates rea"anged in nonascending
order.

We use the notation X>- wV or v -< wX if X weakly majorizes v. If

X, v E R~ , then X>- wV is simply

(8) AJ ~ VI> AI + A2 ~ VI + v2t ... , AI + ... + Am ~ VI + '" +vm •

If the last inequality in (7) is replaced by an equality, we say simply that X
majorizes v and denote this by X >- v or v -< X. The theory of majorization
and the related inequalities are developed in detail in Marshall and Olkin
(1979).

Definition 8.10.4. A region A c R~ is monotone in majorization if X EA,

v ER"::., v -< wX imply v EA. (See Figure 8.3.)

Theorem 8.10.2. If a region A C R"::. is closed, convex, and monotone in

majorization, then A is the acceptance region of an admissible test.

FIgure 8.3. A region monotone in majorization.

356 TE.IOITING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOV A

Theorems 8.10.1 and 8.10.2 are equivalent; it will be convenient to prove

Theorem 8.10.2 first. Then an argument about the extreme points of a
certain convex set (Lemma 8.10.11) establishes the equivalence of the two
theorems.
Theorem 5.6.5 (Stein's theorem) will be used because we can write the
distribution of (X. Y, Z) in exponential form. Let U =XX' + YY' + ZZ' = (u i ;)
and 1:- 1 = (IT 'j ). For a general matrix C=(c" ...• Ck), let vec(C)=
(c;, ... , cD'. The density of (X, Y, Z) can be written af>

(9) f(X, Y. Z) = K(5, D, ~) exp{tr 5'1:- 1 X + tr D'l:-I Y - ~tr l:-I U}

= K (S, D, l:) exp{ OO(I)Y(I) + 00(2)Y(2) + 00~3)Y(3)}'

where K(X,D,l:) is a constant,

oo(l) -- vec (~-I';:1)

'" - , 00(2) = vec( l: - 1 H) ,
00 (3) -- - 2"I ( IT II • 2 IT 12 •••• , 2 IT Ip • IT 22 , •••• IT PP)' ,
(10)
Y(I) = vec( X), Y(2) = vec( Y),

If we denote the mapping (X, Y, Z) ~ Y = (Y(I)' Y(2), Y;3l by g, Y := g(X, Y, Z),

then the measure of a set A in the space of Y is meA) ;.t(g-' (A», where
;.t is the ordinary Lebesgue meaSUre on RP(m+r+n). We note that (X, Y, U) is
a sufficient statistic and so is Y = (Y(I)' Y(2)' Y(3»)" Because a test that is
admissible with respect to the class of tests based on a sufficient statistic
is admissible in the whole class of tests, we consider only tests based on a
sufficient statistic. Then the acceptance regions of these tests are subsets in
the space of y. The density of Y given by the right-hand side of (9) is of the
form of the exponential family, and therefore we :an apply Stein's theorem.
Furthermore, since the transformation (X, Y, U) ~ Y is linear, we prove the
convexity of an acceptance region of (X, Y, U). The acceptance region of an
invariant test is given in terms of A(M(V» = (AI>'''' Am)'. Therefore, in
order to prove the admissibility of these tests we have to check that the
inverse image of A, namely, A = {VI A(M(V» EA), satisfies the conditions
of Stein's theorem, namely. is convex.
Suppose V; = (XI' Xl' U) EA, i = 1,2, that is, A[M(J!;)] EA. By the convex-
ity of A, pA[M(VI )] +qA[M(V2 )] EA for 0 ~p = 1-q oS 1. To show pVI +
qV2 EA, that is, A[M(p~ + qV2 )] EA, we use the property of monotonicity
of majorization of A and the following theorem.
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 357

),.(1) _ ),.(M(V\»)

),.(21 _ )"(M( V2 »

A(M(pYI + qY 2)

Figure 8.4. Theorem 8.10.3.

Theorem 8.10.3.

The proof of Theorem 8.10.3 (Figure 8.4) follows from the pair of
majorizations

(12) A[M(pVI +qV2 )] >-wA[pM(V1 ) +qM(V2 )]

>- ... p A [ M ( VI )] + q A [ M ( V2 ) ] •
The second majorization in (12) is a special case of the following lemma.

Lemma 8.10.1. For A and B symmetric,

(13) A(A+B) >-I<A(A) +A(B).

Proof. By Corollary A.4.2 of the Appendix,

k
(14) E Aj(A +B) = max trR'(A +B)R
,.~ 1 R'R=t,

::; max tr R' AR + max tr R ' BR

R'R=tk R'R=l,

k k
= E Aj(A) + E A,(B)
1=1 1=1

k
= E{A,(A)+A,(B)},
;=1
k=l, .... p.
•
358 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Let A > B mean A - B is positive definite and A;::: B mean A - B is

positive semidefinite.
The first majorization in (12) follows from several lemmas.

Lemma 8.10.2

{I5) pU. + qU2 - (pY, + qYz )( pY. + qY2)'

;:::p(U. - Y.Y;) +q(U2 - Y2Y~)'

Proof The left-hand side minus the right-hand side is

(16) Pl'IY; + qY2 Yi - p 2y t y; - q2Y2Y~ - pq( Y.Y:i + Y2 Y;)

=p(l-p)Y,Y{ +q(1-q)1'2 Y:i -pq(YtY:i +Y2 Y;)
= pq( Y1 - Y2 )( Yt - Y2 )' ;::: O. •

Lemma 8.10.3. If A;?: B > O~ then A's B I

Proof St~e Problem 8.31. •

Lemma 8.10.4. If A> 0, then f(x, A) x' A tX is convex in (x, A).

Proof See Problem 5.17. •

Lemma 8.10.5. If A, > 0, A2 > 0, then

Proof From Lemma 8.10.4 we have for all Y

(18) py'lJ',A 1 'B1y +qy'B 2A 2 i B 2 y

y'(pB. +qB 2)'(pA 1 +qA 2 )-I(pB 1 +qB 2 )y

=p(B,y)'A, '(B,y) +q(B:!y)'A21(B2Y)

- (pB1y + qB 2 y)'( pAl +qA 2 f '( pB,y +qB 2 y)

;?: o. •
Thus the matrix of the quadratic form in Y is positive semidefinite. •

The relation as in (17) is sometimes called matrix convexity. [See Marshall

and Olkin (1979).]
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPER11ES OF TESTS 359

Lemma 8.10.6.

( 19)

where VI=(XI,YI,U I), V2 =(X 2 ,Y2 ,U2 ), UJ-Y1Y~>0, U2 -Y2 Y;>0, O::;,p
=l-q::::;;1.

Proof Lemmas 8.10.2 and 8.10.3 show that

(20) [pU I + qU2 - (pYJ + qY2 )( pYJ + qy2 ),]-J

: : ; [p(U I - YIYD +q(U2 - Y2 Y;)] -1.

This implies

(21) M( pVI + qVz)

J
: : ; (pXJ +qX 2 )'[p(UJ - YJYD +q(U2 - y2 ynr (pX J +qX2 )·

Then Lemma 8.10.5 implies that the right-hand side of (21) is less than or
equal to

•
Lemma 8.10.7. If A ::::;; B, then X(A) -< w ACB).

Proof From Corollary A4.2 of the Appendix,

k k
(23) EA,(A)= max trR'AR::::;; max trR'BR= EA,.(B),
i= I R'R=l k R'R~lk i= I

k= 1, ... ,p. •

From Lemma 8.10.7 we obtain the first majorization in (12) and hence
Theorem 8.10.3, which in turn implies the convexity of A. Thus the accep-
tance region satisfies condition (i) of Stein'S theorem.

Lemma 8.10.8. For the acceptance region A of Theorem 8.10.1 or Theorem

8.10.2, condition (ii) of Stein's theorem is satisfied.

Proof Let 00 correspond to (CI>, 'II, e); then

(24)
= tr (j)'X + tr 'IT'Y- ltr
2 ~U ,
360 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

where 0 is symmetric. Suppose that {yloo'y > c} is disjoint from A =

{VI A(M(V)) EA}. We want to show that in this case 0 is positive semidefi-
nite. If this were not true,.then

(25)

where D is nonsingular and -I is not vaCuous. Let X= (l/'Y)X o, y=

0/'Y )Yo,

(26)

and V= ex, Y, U), where Xo, Yo are fixed matrices and 'Y is a positive
number. Then

o
(27) 1 4>'X + -tr
oo'y = -tr o
1 'V'Y + 2"tr
o
1 (-I0 'YI
'Y 'Y 0 o
for sufficiently large 'Y. On the other hand,

(28) A( M(V)) = A{X'(U - IT') -I X}

= :,X{Xo[W)-'(: Y! ;)D-'
--+0

as 'Y --+ 00. Therefore, V E A for sufficiently large 'Y. This is a contradiction.
Hence 0 is positive semidefinite.
*
Now let 00 l correspond to (4) 1,0, 1), where 4> I O. Then 1 + A0 is
positive definite and 4>1 + A4> * 0 for sufficiently large A. Hence 00 1 + Aoo E
o - 0 0 for sufficiently large A. •

The preceding proof was suggested by Charles Stein.

By Theorem 5.6.5, Theorem 8.10.3 and Lemma 8.10.8 nOw imply Theorem
8.10.2.
To obtain Theorem 8.10.1 from Theorem 8.10.2, we use the following
lemmas.

Lemma 8.10.9. A c R";. is convex and monotone in majorization if and

only if A is monotone and A* is convex.
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 361

e_ extreme points
C(A)

D(A) (AI. Q)

Figure 8.5

Proof Necessity. If A is monotone in majorization, then it is obviously

monotone. A* is convex (see Problem 8.35).

Sufficiency. For A E R"::. let

C( A) = {xix E R:', x >- ". A},

(29)
D(A) = {xlxER"::. ,x>-,..A).

It will be proved in Lemma 8.10.10, Lemma 8.10.11, and its l'orullary that
monotonicity of A and convexity of A* implies COdcA*. Then D(A) =
C( A) n R"::, cA* n R"::, = A. Now suppose v E R'~ and v --< '" A. Then v E
D( A) CA. This shows that A is monotone in majorization. Fmthermore. if
A* is convex, then A = R"::, nA* is convex. (See Figure 8.5.) •

Lemma 8.10.10. Let C be compact and convex, and let D be conve;r. fr the
extreme points of C are contained in D, then C cD.

Proof Obvious. •

Lemma 8.10.11. Every extreme point of C(A) is of the fomz

where 7T' is a perrnutation of (l, ... ,m) and 01 = ... = 01. = 1,01.+1 = ." = 8",
= 0 for some k.

Proof C( A) is convex. (See Problem 8.34.) Now note that C( A) is permu-

tation-s)mmetric, that is, if (xl, .... x m )' E C(A). then (x".(I) ..... X".(m/ E
C(A) for any permutation 7T'. Therefore, for any permutation iT. iT(C( A)) =
362 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

{(X.,,-(I) . . . . . . r::'Im),lx E C(A)} coincides with C(A). This implies that if

(xl •...• x'v)'is an extreme point of C(A), then (X1I"(I)' ... ,x".(. is also an ,l
extreme point. In particular, (x[I), ... , x[I1II) E W~ is an extreme point. Con-
\lersely. if (x, •... , X/1,) E R'~ is an extreme point of C(A), then
(X1l"(I),"" X"'(lI)' is an extreme point.
We see that once we enumerate the extreme points of C(A) in R":;, the
rest of the extreme points can be obtained by permutation.
Suppose x E R":. . An extreme point, being the intersection of m hyper-
planes. has to satisfy m or more of the following 2m equations:

E"1.: x ,=O,
(31)

Em: \111 = O.

Suppose that k is the first index such that Ek holds. Then x E Rn~ implies
o=x" ?:xl+I ;::: •.. 2X m 2 O. Therefore, E/p"" E", hold. The remaining
k - 1 = ttl - (m k + 1) or more equations are among the F's. We order
them as F,I'"'' Fv where i l < ... < ii, 12 k - 1. Now i l < ." < i l impHes
i,?:1 with equality if and only if i l = 1, ... ,i,=I. In this case FI, ... ,Fk _ 1
hold (l?: k n Now suppose i , > t. Since x.I. = ". = xm = 0,

(32) F'/ ; x I + .,' +X

,,- 1
= AI +." +A " 1
+ ". +A·.
"

But x I + .•. +X" -I .:s;: Al + ... + A.I. _ I' and we have Ak + ... + A'l = O. There-
fore. 0 = A" + .. ' + A'l;::: A" ;::: ... ;::: A'l! ?: O. In this case FI<. -1' ... , F,n reduce
to the same equation Xl + ... +X k - 1 = Al + ". +AI<._I' It follows that X
satisfies k 2 more equations, which have tf. be F I , ••• , FI<._ 2' We have
shown that in either case E", ...• EII/' Fb"" f, -I hold and thi5 gives the
point f3 = (AI" •.• Ak 1: 0, ... ,0), which is in R'~ n C( A). Therefore, f3 is an
extreme point. •

Corollary 8.10.1. C(A) cA*.

Proof If A is monotone, then A* is monotone in the sense that if

A=(A1 ....• A,,,)'EA*. V=(Jll •...• l~,,)'. JI,.:s;:A,. i=l, ... ,m, then vEA*.
(See Problem 8.35.) Now the extreme points of C(A) given by (30) are in A*
because of permutation symmetry and monotonicity of A*. Hence, by Lemma
8.10.10. C(A)cA*. •
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 363

Proof of Theorem 8.10.1. Immediate ·from Theorem 8.10.2 and Lemma

8.10.9. •

Application of the theory of SChur-convex functions yields several corollar-

ies to Theorem 8.10.2

Corollary 8.10.2. Let g be continuous, nondecreasing, and convex in [0, O.

Let
m
(33) f( A) = f( AI> ... , Am) = L g( Ai)'
, = I

Then a test with the acceptance region A = {A Ife A) :::; c} i..'1 admissible.

Proof Being a sum of convex functions f is convex, and hence A is

convex. A is closed because f is continuous. We want to show that if
fex):::; c and y -< wx ex,y E R'~), then f(y):::; c. Let 'Yk = r.~=IXi' Yk = r.~=t YI'
Then y -< wX if and only if x k '?:..Y", k = 1, .. " m. Let f(x) = h(x 1'''', xm) =
g(it) + Ei=2g(i j - x,_). It suffices to show that hCxl>'''' xm) is increasing
in each ij' For i :::; m - 1 the convexity of g implies that

(34) h(il, ... ,xj+e",.,xm)-h(Xt, ... ,ij, ... ,im)

For i = m the monotonicity of g implies

Setting g(A) = -log(1- A), g(A) = A/(l - A), g(A) = A, respectively,

shows that Wilks' likelihood ratio test, the Lawley-Hotelling trace test, and
the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai test are admissible. Admissibility of Roy's maxi-
mum root test A: At :::; c follows directly from Theorem 8.10.1 or Theorem
8.10.2. On the contrary, the millimum root fest, AI :::; c, where t = minem, p),
does not satisfy the convexity condition. The following theorem shows that
this test is actually inadmissible.

Theorem 8.10.4. A necessary condition for an invariant test to be admissible

is that the extended region in the space of fA;, ... , ,fA, is convex and monotone.

We shall only sketch the proof of this theorem [following Schwartz (1967)].
Let ,;>:;
= d,-, i = 1, ... , t, and let the density of d I' ... , d r be fedl v), where
v = (vL,"" v)' is defined in Section 8.6.5 and f(dl v) is given in Chapter 13.
364 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

The ratio f(dl v) If(dl 0) can be extended symmetrically to the unit cube
(0:::;; d;:::;; 1, i = 1, ... , t). The extended ratio is then a convex function and is
strictly increasing in each d i • A proper Bayes procedure has an acceptance
region
f(dlv)
(36)
f (dIO) dI1(v) ~C,

where H( v) is a finite measure on the space of v's. Then the symmetric

extension of the set of d satisfying (36) is convex and monotone [as shown by
Birnbaum (1955)], The closure (in the weak*topology) of the set of Bayes
procedures forms an essentially complete class [Wald (1950)]. In this case the
limit of the convex monotone acceptance regions is convex and monotone.
The exposition of admissibility here was developed by Anderson and
Takemuta (1982).

8.10.2. Unbiasedness of Tests and Monotonicity of Power Functions

A test T is called unbiased if the power achieves its minimum at the null
hypothesis. When there is a natural parametrization and a notion of distance
in the parameter space, the power function is monotone if the power
increases as the distance between the alternative hypothesis and the null
hypothesis increases. Note that monotonicity implies unbiasedness. In this
section we shall show that the power functions of many of the invariant tests
of the general linear hypothesis are monotone in the invariants of the
parameters, namely, the roots; these can be considered as measures of
distance.
To introduce the approach, we consider the acceptance interval (-a, a)
fer testiug the null hypothesis /-L = 0 against the alternative /-L =1= 0 on the
basis of an observation from N( /-L, (]"2). In Figure 8.6 the probabilities of
acceptanc{; are represented by the shaded regions for three values of /-L. It is
clear that the probability of acceptance gecreases monotonically (or equiva-
lently tlte power increases monotonically) as /-L moves away from zero. In
fact, this property depends only on the density function being unimodal and
symmetric.

-a IL=O a -a OlLa -a 0 a IL
Figure 8.6. Three probabilities of acceptance.
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 365

Figure 8.7. Acceptance regions,

In higher dimensions we generalize the interval by a symmetric convex set.

and we ask that the density function be symmetric and unimodal in the sense
that every contour of constant density surrounds a convex set. In Figure 8.7
we ilJustr lte that in this case the probability of acceptance decreases mono-
tonically. The following theorem is due to Anderson (1955b).

Theorem 8.10.5. Let E be a convex set in n-space, symmetric about the

origin. Let f(x):?:. 0 be a function such that CO f(x) - f( -x), (H){xlf(x);::: u} =
KII is convex for every u (0 < u < (0), and (iii) fEf(x) dx < x. Then

(37)

for 0 ~k.:s;; 1.

The proof of Theorem 8.10.5 is based on the following lemma.

Lemma 8.10.12. Let E, F be convex and symmetric about the origin. Then

(38) V{ (E + ky) n F} ~ V{ (E + y) n F},

where 0 :s k :s 1 and V denotes the n--d.imensional volume.

Proof. Consider the set aCE + y) + (1 - ,deE - y) = aE + (1- a)E +

(2 a 1)y which consists of points a(x + y) + (1 - a)(z - y) with x, Z E E
Let ao = (k + 1)/2, So that 2 ao - 1 == k. Then by convexity of E we have

(39)

Hence by convexity of F
366 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTIlESIS; MANOVA

and

(40) V{ao[(E +y) nF] + (1- O'o)[(E-y) nF]} s; V{(E +ky) nF}.

Now by the Brunn-Minkowski inequality [e,g" Bonnesen and Fenchel (948),

Section 48], we have

(41) Vlln{O'ol(E+y)nF] +(l-O'o)[(E-y)nF])

~ 0'0V1/"{(E +y) nF} + (1- O'o)Vlln{(E -y) nF}
1
= O'oV II n{ (E + y) n F} + ( I - 0'0) V / " { ( - E + y) n ( - F)}

- V 1/ n { ( E + y) n F} .

The last equality follows from the symmetry of E and F. •

Proof of Theorem 8.] O. 5. Let

( 42) H(u) V{(E+Icy)nK"L

( 43) H*(u) V{(E+y) nKu}'

Then

(44) ff(x +y) dx f f(x) dx

E E+y

;::c

= In H * ( u) du.
Similarly,

f f( x + Icy) dx 1 H( u) du.
:;c
(45)
£ 0

By Lemma 8.10.12, H(u) 2 H*(u). Hence Theorem 8.10.5 fOllows from (44)
and (45). •
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 367

We start with the canonical form given in Section 8.10.1. We further

simplify the problem as follo·vs. Let t = min(m, p), and let v I' .•• , Vr (v I ~ Vz
~ ... ~ v r) be the nonzero characteristic roots of S':I -IS, where S tlX.

Lemma 8.10.13. There exist matrices B (p X p) and F (m X m) such that

B:IB' Ip' FF' =1m'

BSF' (Dt,O ), p~m,

(46)

= (~!), p>m,

Proof We prove this for the case p ~ m and vp > O. Other cases can be
proved similarly. By Theorem A.2.2 of the Appendix there is a matrix B such
that

(47) B:IB' == I,
Let

(48)
Then
(49) ..Ti' I F'1-- Ip'

Let F' = (F;, F;) be a full m X m orthogonal matrix. Then

(50)
and

(51) B'SF' =BS(F;,Fi) =BS(S'B'D;i,Fz) =(DLO). •

Now let

(52) U=BXF', V=BZ.

Then the columns of U, V are independently normally distributed with

covariance matrix 1 and means when p ~ m

tlU (D!,O),
(53)
tlV=O.
368 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Invariant tests are given in terms of characteristic roots II," . , I r (ll ~ ".. ~ Ir)
of U '(W')- I U. Note that for the admissibility we used the characteristic
roots of Ai of U'(UU' + W,)-IU rather than Ii = Ar/o - A). Here it is more
natural to use Ii' which corresponds to the parameter value Vi' The following
theorem is given by Das Gupta, Anderson, and Mudholkar (1964).

Theorem 8.10.6. If the acceptance region of an invariant test is convex in

the space of each column vector of U for each Set vf fixed values or v and of lhe
other column vectors of U, then the power of the test increases monotonically in
each Vi'

Proof. Since uu t is unchanged when any column vector of U is multiplied

by -1, the acceptance region is symmetr:c about the origin in each of the
column vectors of U. Now the density of U = ('I/ f ), V = (0,,) is

(54) I{ u, V)

= (27T)

Applying Theorem 8.10.5 to (54), we see that the power increases monotoni-
cally in each F." •
Since the section of a convex set is convex, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 8.10.3. If the acceptance region A of an invariant test is convex in

U for each fixed V, then the power of the test increases monotonically in each VI"

From this we see that Roy's maximum root test A: II ::;; K and the
Lawley-Hotelling trace test A: tr U'(W,)-I U::;; K have power functions that
are monotonically increa!'>ing in each VI'
To see that the acceptance region of the likelihood ratio test

r
(55) A: O{1+I,)::;;K
i- I

satisfies the condition of Theorem 8.10.6 let

(W,)-I = T'T, T:pXp

(56)
U* = (ur. ... ,u~) = TV.
8.10 SOME OPTIMAL PROPERTIES OF TESTS 369

Then
r
(57) fl(1 +1;) ==IU'(W,)-l U + 1 1=\u*'u* +/1
i= I

=IU*U*' +/\=luju!, +BI

== (lli'B-1ui + l)IBI
= (u\ T' B- 1 Tu 1 + I) IB I ,

where B u~ u~ I + '" +U~,U;'.' + 1. Since T' B I.,.

is pOl\itivc definite. (55) is
convex in u I' Therefore, the likelihood ratio test ha..; a power function which
is monotone Increasing in each V"
The Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test

(58) A: tr U'(UU' + W,)-I U = E '5:K

i- I

has an acceptance region that is an ellipsoid if K < 1 and is convex in each

column u{ of U provided K ~ L CSee Problem 8.36.) For K> 1 (58) may not
be convex in each COIl mn of U. The reader can work out an example for
p= 2,
Eaton and Perlman (1974) have shown that if an invariant test is convex in
U and W = W', then the power at CV:i, ••• , vrll ) is greater than at ( )'1' , ••. 1',) if
C{;;, ... ,{v')-<wC";;?, ... ,N).
We shall not prove this result. Roy's
maximum root test and the Lawley-HoteHing trace test satisfy the condition.
but the likelihood ratio and the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test do not.
Takemura has shown that if the acceptance region is convex in U and W,
the set of {;;, ... , {V, for which the power is not greater than a constant is
monotone and convex.
It is enlightening to consider the contours of the power function.
nc{;;"." {V,). Theorem 8.10.6 does not exclude case Ca) of Figure 8.8.

~ v;
(b) (c;
Figure 8.8. Contours of power functions.
370 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

and similarly the Eaton-Perlman result does not exclude (b). The last result
guarantees that the contour looks like (c) for Roy's maximum root test and
the Lawley-Hotelling trace test. These results relate to the fact that these
two tests are more likely to detect alternative hypotheses where few v/s are
far from zero. In contrast with this, the likelihood ratio test and the
Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test are sensitive to the overall departure from
the null hypothesis. It might be noted that the convexity in rv-space cannot
be translated into the convexity in v-space.
By using the noncentral density of l,'s which depends on the parameter
values Vl"'" VI' Perlman and Olkin (980) showed that any invariant test
with monotone acceptance region (in the space of roots) is unbiased. Note
that this result covers all the standard tests considered earlier.

8.11. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

8.11.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

The regression model of Section 8.2 can be written

( 1) a= 1, ... ,N,

where en is an unobserved disturbance with Ltea = 0 and Geae~ = I. We

assume that eC'( has a density I AI- ~g(e' A-Ie); then 1= (GR 2 /p)A, where
R~ = e~ A' 1en' In general the exact distrihution of B = r.~~ 1 x .. z~ A -I and
NI = L:;'= l(X a - BZa XXa - BZa)' is difficult to obtain and cannot be ex-
pressed concisely. However, the expected value of B is t3, and the covariance
matrix of vec B is I ® A -I with A = L:Z= 1 Za z~. We can develop a large-'
sample distribution for B and Nt.

Theorem 8.11.1. Suppose O/N)A --+ Ao, z~ ZC'( < constant, a = 1,2, ... ,
and either the eu's are independent identically distributed or the ea's are indepen-
dent with (},l'l e~eaI2+e < constant for some 8> O. Then B.4 t3 and IN vec(B-
t3) has a limiting normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance matrix
"k ""
'01.'t (\- 1.

Theorem 8.11.1 appears in Anderson (971) as Theorem 5.5.13. There are

many alternatives to its assumptions in the literature. Under its assumptions
i n ~ I. This result permits a large-sample theory for the criteria for testing
null hypotheses about t3.
Consider testing the null hypothesis

(2) H:t3=t3*,
8.11 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 371

where p* is completely specified. In Section 8.3 a more general hypothesis

was considered for 13 partitioned as 13 = (131,132)' However, as shown in that
section by the transformation (4), the hypothesis PI = ~ can be reduced to a
hypothesis of the form (1) above.
Let
N ,.
(3) G= 2: (Xa - Bz Q, ) ( Xa BZa)' = NIt n ,
a=-I

(4) H= ( B- 13) A( B - 13) I.

Lemma 8.11.1. Under the conditions of Theorem 8.11.1 the h'miting distri-
bution of H is W(l:. q).

Proof Write Has

(5)

Then the lemma fol1ows from Theorem 8.11.1 and (4) of Section 8.4. •

We can express the likelihood ratio criterion in the form

(6) -210g A= NlogU=N 10gll+G-IHI

1 1 ) -I I
I
=Nlog 1+ N(NG H.

Theorem 8.11.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 8.11.1, when the null
hypothesis is true,
d 2
(7) -210g A -+ Xpq'

Proof. We use the fact that N logll + N- 1 CI = tr C + Op(N- l ) when N -+

2
00, since II + xCI = 1 + x tr C + O(x ) (Theorem A.4.8).

We have

= [vec(B' - p/)]/(~G-l ®A)vec(B' 13') ~ X;q

because (l/N)G ~ l:, (l/N)A -+Ao, and the limiting distribution of

!Nvec(B' - 131) is N(l: ®A;I). •
372 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Theorem 8.11.2 agrees with the first term of the asymptotic expansion of
- 210g A given by Theorem 8.5.2 for sampling from a normal distribution.
The test and confidence procedures discussed in Sections 8.3 and 8.4 can be
applied using this X 2-distribution.
The criterion U = A2/ N can be written as U = nf~ I V, where Vi is defined
in (8) of Section 8.4. The term V; has the form of U; that is, it is the ratio of
the sum of squares of residuals of Xta regressed on x I a' ... , Xi _I, a' Za to the
sum regressed on xla, ... ,xi-I,a' It follows that under the null hypothesis
VI"'" Vp are asymptotically independent and -N log V; ~ Xq2. Thus
-N log U = -N[f= I log fIi ~ X;q' This argument justifies the step-down
procedure asymptotically.
Section 8.6 gave several other criteria for the general linear hypothesis:
the Lawley- Hotelling trace tr HG - I, the Bartlett-Nand a-Pillai trace tr H( G
+ H) - I, and the Roy maximum root of HG - 1 or H( G + H) -I. The limiting
distributions of N tr HG -I and N tr H(G + H)-I are again X;q. The limiting
distribution of the maximum characteristic root of NHG- 1 or NH(G +H)-I
is the distribution of the maximum characteristic root of H having the
distributions W(I, q) (Lemma 8.11.1). Significance points for these test crite-
ria are available in Appendix B.

8.11.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

In Section 8.3.2 the p X N matrix of observations on the dependent variable
was defined as X = (x I' ... , X N)' and the q X N matrix of observations on the
independent variables as Z = (z I' .. " ZN); the two matrices are related by
$ X = J3Z. Note that in this chapter the matrices of observations have N
columns instead of N rowS.
Let E = (e)o .•. , eN) be a p X N random matrix with densi ty
IAI- N / 2g[F- I EE'(F')-I], where A=FF'. Define X by

(9) X= J3Z +E.

In these terms the least squares estimator of J3 is

( 10) B = XZ' ( ZZ') - 1 = CA - I,

where C =XZ' = L~=IXaZ~ and A = ZZ' = L~=IZaZ~. Note that the density
of eis invariant with respect to multiplication on the right by N X N
orthogonal matrices; that is, E' is left spherical. Then E' has the stochastic
represp-ntation
d
(11) E' = UTF',
8.11 ELLIPTICALLY CONlOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 373

where U has the uniform distribution on U'U = Ip, T is the lower triangular
matrix with nonnegative diagonal elements satisfying EE' = IT', and F
is a lower triangular matrix with nonnegative diagonal elements satisfying
FF' = I. We can write

(12) B- P =EZ'A I ! FT'U'Z'A -I,

(13) H = (B - P)A(B - P)' = EZ' A-1ZE' 1,., FT'U'( Z'A -I Z)UTF'.

(14) G=(X-PZ)(X-PZ)' -H=EE'-H

= E( IN - Z/ A-I Z)E' = FT'U'( IN - Z/ A-I Z)UTF'.

It was shown in Section 8.6 that the likelihood ratio criterion for H: P = O.
the Lawley-Hotelling trace criterion, the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace crite-
rion, and the Roy maximum root test are invariant with respect to linear
transformations x ~ Kx. Then Corollary 4.5.5 implies the following theorem.

Theorem 8.11.3. Under the null hypothesis P = O. the distribution o.f each
inuadant criterion when the distribution of E' is left spherical is the same (IS the
distribution under nonnality.

Thus the tests and confidence regions described in Section 8.7 are valid
for left-spherical distributions E /.
The matrices Z' A-1Z and IN - Z' A -I Z are idempotent of ranks q and
N - q. There is an orthogonal matrix ON such that

The transformation V = O'U is uniformly distributed on V'V = Ii" and

(16) O]l'
o X' ' o
I."'-q
]l'X' ,
where K = FT'.
The trace criterion tr HG-I, for example, is

(17)

The distribution of any invariant criterion depends only on U (or V), not
on T.
374 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

Since G + H = FT'TF', it is independent of U. A selection of a linear

transformation of X can be made on the basis of G + H. Let D be a p x r
matrix of rank r that may depend on G + H. Define x: = D' x Then Q
'

'Y'l<x~ = (D'Ph", and the hypothesis P = 0 implies D'P = O. Let X* =

(xj, ... ,x~)=D'X, Po=D'P. E D'E, Ho==D'HD, GD=D'GD. Then
" test criteria for Po = 0 are those for
E;) = E' D 4: UTF' D'. The invariant
p = 0 and have the same distributions under the null hypothesis as for the
normal distribution with p replaced by r.

PROBLEMS

8.1. (Sec. 8.2.2) Consider the following sample (for N = 8):

Weight of grain 40 17 9 15 6 12 5 9
Weight of straw 53 19 10 29 13 27 ]9 30
Amount of fertilizer 24 11 5 12 7 14 11 18

Let Z1Q = 1, and let zla be the amount of fertilizer on the ath plot. Estimatel:J
for this sample. Test the hypothesis I:J I = 0 at fie 0.01 significance level.

8.2. (Sec. 8.2) Show that Theorem 3.2.1 is a special case of Theorem 8.2.1.
[Him: Let q = 1, za = 1, I:J = It.]

8.3. {Sec. 8.2) Prove Theorem 8.2.3.

8.4. (&:c. 8.2) Show that f3 minimizes the generalized variance

N
E (x" I:Jz")(x,, -l:Jz,,), .
u-I

8.5. (Sec. 8.3) In the following data [Woltz, Reid, and Colwell (1948), used by
R. L Anderson and Bancroft (1952)] the variables are Xl' rate of cigarette bum;
).'~. the percentage of nicotine; Zl' the percentage of nitrogen; z2' of chlorine;
z~. of potassium; Z4' of phosphorus; Z5' of calcium; and z6' of magnesium; and
Z 7 = 1; and N = 25:

53.92
62.02
56.00
(42.20)
EN xa =
a=l
54.03 '
Q=I
12.25 ,
89.79
24.10
25

~
"""I ( x" - _)(
X x" - x
_)'
=
(0.6690
0.4527
0.4527)
6.5921 '
"
PROBLEMS 375

N
E (za -Z;)(za -z)'
a=1

I
1.8311 -0.3589 -0.0125 -0.0244 1.6379 0.5057 0
-0.3589 8.8102 -0.3469 0.0352 0.7920 0.2173 0
-0.0125 -0.3469 1.5818 -0.0415 -1.4278 -0.4753 0
= -0.0244 0.0352 -0.0415 0.0258 0.0043 0.0154 0
1.6379 0.7920 -1.4278 0.0043 3.7248 0.9120 0
0.5057 0.2173 -0.4753 0.0154 0.9120 03828 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2501 2.6691
-1.5136 -2.0617
N 0.5007 -0.9503
E (za - Z){ xa - i)' = -0.0421 -0.0187
Q""I -0.1914 3.4020
-0.1586 1.1663
0 0

(a) Estimate the regression of xl and Xz on ZI' z5' z6' and Z"
(b) Estimate the regression on all seven variables.
(c) Test the hypothesis that t"te regression on Z2' Z3' and Z4 is O.

8.6. (Sec. 8.3) Let q = 2, Z La = wa (scalar), zZa = 1. Show that the U-statistic for
testing the hypothesis 131 = 0 is a monotonic function of a T2- statistic, and give
the TZ~stalislic in a simple form. (See Problem 5.1.)

8.7. (Sec. 8.3) Let Zqa = 1, let qz 1. and let

i.j= l, .... ql =q-l.

Prove that

8.8. (Sec. 8.3) Let q, = qz. How do you test the hypothesis 131 = 132?

8.9. (Sec. 8.3) Prove

e.I""IH "'" "'x

I... a(z(1)
a A lZ A-zz z(2»'["'(Z(l)-A
1
'X I... a IZ A-Lz(2»)(z(l)-A
22 a a
1"a
IZ A-22 ?(2»)'j-l
a a
376 TESTING THE GENt;RAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

8.10. (Sec. 8.4) By comparing Theorem 8.2.2 and Problem 8.9, prove Lemma 8.4.1.

8.11. (Sec. 8.4) Prove Lemma 8.4.1 by showing that the density of ~lfi and ~2'" is

K t exp[ -ttr I-l(~tn - Pi)All'Z(~]fi - Pi)']

.K2 exp[ - ttr I-I (~Z'" -132 )A22(~2b) - ~),] .

8.12. (Sec. 8.4) Show that the cdf of U3,3.n is

1 -11) r(n+2)r[t(n+1)]
/u( 2 n '2 + r(n-l)r(zn-l)v1T
1 r=

2u!n I ~ ut<n-I) 1
.( n(n-l) + n-l [arcsin(2u-1)-2'1T]

2u~n
+ -n- Iog
(1 + {U.;r-=u) + 2u~n-l(1-
3( n + 1)
U)t}
.

[Hint: Use Theorem 8.4.4. The region {O ~ Zl ~ 1,0 :s;.zz :::;.1, ztzz ~ u} is the
union of {O'::;;ZI :::;.1,0 :::;'z2'::;; u} and {O :s;.ZI ~U/z2' u ,::;;zz :s;.1}.]

8.13. (Sec. 8.4) .

Find Pr{U4 3, 'I ~ u} .

8.14. (Sec. 8.4) Find Pr{U4• 4,n 2 u}.

8.1S. (Sec. 8.4) For p s m find ooEU h from the density of G and H. [Hint: Use the
fact that the density of K + [i= 1 V.V;' is W( I" s + t) if the density of K is
WeI, s) and VI"'" V. are independently distributed as N(O, I,).]

8.16. (Sec. 8.4)

(a) Show that w.hen p is even, the characteristic function of y,.. log Up.In,n, say
4>(0 = ooE e"Y, is the reciprocal Of a polynomial.
(b) Sketch a method of inverting the characteristic function of Y by the
method of residues.
(c) Show that the resulting, denSity of U is a polynomial in Iii
and log u with
possibly a factor of u - i'.

8.17. (Sec.8.5) Usc the asymptotic expansion of the distribution to compute pr{-k
log U3,3,n :s;. M*} for

(a) n = 8, M* = 14.7,
(b) n 8, M* = 21.7,
(c) n = 16, M* = 14.7,
(d) n"'" 16, M* = 21.7.

(Either compute to the third decimal place or use the expansion to the k- 4
term.)
PROBLEMS 377

8.18. (Sec. 8.5) In case p = 3, ql = 4, and n = N - q = 20, find the 50~ significance
point for k log U (a) using -210g A as X 2 and (b) using -k log U as X 2 • Using
more terms of this expansion, evaluate the exact significance levels for your
answers to (a) and (b).

8.19. (Sec. 8.6.5) Prove for I; ~ 0, i = 1, ... , p,

p /. p p
L
i= I
1 ~ /.
'
s: log n
,= I
(I + I,) ~ L I"
,= I

Comment: The inequalities imply an ordering of the value!'. of the

Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace, the negative logarithm of the likelihood ratio
criterion, and the Lawley-HoteHing trace.

8.20. (Sec. 8.6) The multivariaIe bela density. Let Hand G be independently dis·
tributed according to W(l:, m) and WCI, n), respectively. Let C be a matrl"
such that CC ' = H + G, and let

Show that the density of L is

for Land /- L positive definite, and 0 otherwise.

8.21. (Sec. 8.9) Let Yi } (a p·component vector) be distributed according to N(fl.",!).

where 00£11) = fl.ij = fl. + Ai + Vj + "Ii)' LiA; = 0 = L)Vj = L,"II) = '5...)"11); the "I,}
are the interactions. If m observations are made on each 1Ij (say .v,)!' ... ,Y"m)'
how do you test the hypothesis A, = 0, i = 1, ... , r ~ How do you test the
hypothesis "Ii} = 0, I = 1, ... , r, j = 1, ... , c?

8.22. (Sec. 8.9) The Latin square. Let Y;j' i, j = 1, ... , r, be distributed according to
N(fl.ij> :1:), where cx:Elj) = fl.ij = "I + A, + Vj + fl.k and k = j - i + 1 (mod r) with
LAi = LV} = Lfl.k = O.

(a) Give the univariate analysis of variance table for main effects and errOr
(including sums of squares, numbers of degrees of freedom. ,mo mean
squares).
(b) Give the table for the vector case.
(c) Indicate in the vector case how to test the hypothesis A, = 0, i = 1. .... r.

8.23. (Sec. 8.9) Let XI he the yield of a process and x~ a quality measure. Ld
zi = 1, Z2 = ± 10° (temperature relative to average) = ±O.75 lndatiw: nwa· =,
sure of flow of one agent), and z.. = ± 1.50 (relative measure of flow of another
agent). [See Anderson (1955a) for details.] Three ohs~rvations were made on x.
378 TESTING THE GENERAl. LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; lvlANOVA

and x:! for each possihle triplet of values of Z2' Z3' and %4' The estimate of Pis

~ = (58.529 -0.3829 - 5.050 2.308) .

98.675 0.1558 4.144 -0.700 '

Sl = 3.090, s2 = 1.619, and r = -0.6632 can be used to compute S or i.

(a) Formulate an analysis of variance model for this situation.
(b) Find a confidence region for the effects of temperature (i.e., 1112,1122)'
(c) Test the hypothesis that the two agents have no effect on the yield and
quantity,

8.24. (Sec. 8.6) Interpret the transformations referred to in Theorem 8.6.1 in the
original terms; that is, H: PI = 13! and z~).

8.25. (Sec. 8.6) Find the cdf of tr HG - I for p = 2. [Hint: Use the distribution of the
roots given in Chapter 13.]

8.26. (Sec. 8.10.1) Bartiett-Nanda-Pillai V·test as a Bayes procedure. Let

WI' w~" '" be independently normally distributed with covariance matrix
W m +"
:r and mealls xEw, '= 'Y" i = 1, ... , m, ooEw, = 0, i "'" m + 1, ... , m + n. Let no be
defined by [f I, I] = [0, (I + CC' )' 1], where the p X m matrix C has a density
proportional to I/+CC'I-~(n+m), and fl=('YI, .. .,'Ym)~ let n, be defined by
[f I' I] = [(I + CC') - IC, (I + CC') -I] where C has a density proportional to
IT + CC'I - -h ll + nl ) e1lr C'(/ +CC') IC,

(a) Show that the measures are finite for n ';?:;p by showing tr C'(I + CC,)-IC
< m and verifying that the integral of II + CC'I- ~(n+m) is finite. [Hint: Let
C= (c1, ... ,cm ), Dj=l+ Ei_lcrc; =EJEj, cj=E;_ld),i= 1, ... ,m(Eo =J).
Show ID) = IDj_,IO +d;d) and hence IDml = n}:,(1 +l;d/ Then refeI
to Problem 5.15.]
(b) Show that the inequality (26) of Section 5.6 is equivalent to

Hence the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai V-test is Bayes and thus admissible.

8.27. (Sec. 8.10.1) Likelihood ratio lest as a Bayes procedure. Let wI'"'' wm+n be
independently normally distributed with covariance matrix I and means ooEw{
,. 'YI' i"", 1, ... ,m, oc.Ew, = 0, i-m + l, ... ,m +n, with n';?:;m +p. Let be no
defined by [f I' I] = [0, (I + CC') -I], where the p X m matrix C has a deru:ity
proportional to II + CC'I- ,(Il+n1) and fl = ('YI,"" 'Ym); let I be defined by n
PROBLEMS 379

where the m columm of D are conditionally independently normally distributed

with means 0 and covariance matrix [1- C'(J +CC')-lC]-I, and C has (margi-
nal) density proportional to

(a) SIIOW the measures are finite. [Hint: See Problem 8.26.]
(b) Show that the inequality (26) of Section 5.6 is equivalent to

Hence the likelihood ratio test is Bayes and thus admissible.

8.28. (Sec. 8.10.1) Admissibility of the likelihood ratio test. Show that tlle acceptance
region Izz' 1/ IZZ' + XX' I :::: c satisfies the conditions of Theorem 8.1 0.1. [Hint:
The acceptance region can be written n~~lml>c, where m i =l-A" i=
1,,,.,t.]

8.29. (Sec. 8.10.1) Admissibility of the Lawley-Hotelling test. Show that the accep-
tance region tr XX'(ZZ') -I ~ c satisfies the conditions of Theorem 8.10.1.

8.30. (Sec. 8.10.1) Admissibility of the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai trace test. Show that the
acceptance region tr X'(ZZ' +XX,)-IX $ c satisfies the conditions of Theorem
8.10.1.

8.31. (Sec. 8.10.1) Show that if A and B are positive definite and A - B is positive
semidefinite, then B- 1 - A -I is positive semidefinite.

8.32. (Sec.8.10.1) Show that the boundary of A has m-measure 0. [Hint: Show that
(closure of A) c.1 U C, where C = (JI1 u - Yl" is singular}.]

8.33. (Sec. 8.10.1) Show that if A c R~ is convex and monotone in majorization,

then A* is convex. [Hint: Show

(pX + qy)! >- w px! + qy ! '

where

8.34. (Sec. 8.10.1) Show that C( A) is convex. [Hint: Follow the solution of Problem
8.33 to show ( px + qy) -< w A if x -< w A and y -< w A.]

8.35. (Sec. 8.10.1) Show that if A is monotone, then A* is monotone. [Hint; Use
the fact that

X[kl = max {min(x",,,.,x.J}.]

··,·k
11 , .
380 TESTING THE GENERAL LINEAR HYPOTHESIS; MANOVA

8.36. (Sec. 8.10.2) MOlwtonicity of the power function of the Bartlett-Nanda-Pillai

trace test. Show that

tr·(uu' +B)(uu' +B+W)-':5,K

is convex in u for fixed positive semidefinite B and positive definite B + W if

o.s; K:5, 1. [Hint: Verify
(uu' + B + W)-\

=(B+W)-I- 1 _\ (B+W)·IUU'(B+W)-'.
l+u'(B+W) u

The resulting quadratic form in u involves the matrix (tr A)/- A for A =
I I
(B + W)- >B(B + W)- >; show that this matrix is positive semidefinite by diago-
nalizing A.]

8.37. (Sec. 8.8) Let x~,), Q' = 1, ... , Np , be observations from N(f.L<p), :I), v = 1, ... , q.
What criterion may be used to test the hypothesis that
m
f.L<~) = E 'Y;,Chll + f.L,
h=\

where Chp arc given numbers and 'Ypl f.L arc unknown vectors? [Note: This
hypothesis (that the means lie on an m-dimensional hyperplane with ratios of
distances known) can be put in the form of the general linear hypothesis.]

8.38. (Sec. 8.2) Let xa be an observation from N(pz" I :I), Q' = 1, ... , N. Suppose
there is a known fixed vector 'Y such that P'Y = O. How do you estimate P?

8.39. (Sec. 8.8) What is the largest group of transformations on y~l), Q' = 1, ... , Nfl
i = 1, ... , q, that leaves (1) invariant? Prove the test (12) is invariant under this
group.
CHAPTER 9

Testing Illdependence of
Sets of Variates

9.1. INTRODUCTION

In this section we divide a set of P variates with a joint normal distribution

into q subsets and ask whether the q s,ubsets are mutually independent; this
is equivalent to testing the hypothesis that each variable in one subset is
uncorrelated with each variable in the others. We find the likelihood ratio
criterion for this hypothesis, the moments of the criterion under the null
hypothesis, some particular distributions, and an asymptotic expansion of the
distribution.
The likelihood ratio criterion is invariant under linear transformations
within sets; another such criterion is developed. Alternative test procedures
are step-down procedures, which are not invariant, but are flexible. In the
case of two sets, independence of the two sets is equivalent to the regression
of one on the other being 0; the criteria for Chapter 8 are available. Some
optimal properties of the likelihood ratio test are treated.

9.2. THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION FOR TESTING

INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

Let the p-component vector X be d istribu ted according to N(IJ.,:£). We

partition X into q subvectors with PI' P2.' ", Pq components, respectively:

An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, ThIrd Edition, By T, W. Andersoll

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons. Inc,

381
382 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

that is,

( 1) x::::

The vector of means .... and the covariance matrix I are partitioned similarly,

....ll)
....(2)

(2) .... =

....(q)

:1:[l In :1: lq
I2I I22 I 2q
( 3) I=

Iql Iq2 Iqq

The null hypothesis we wish to test is that the subvectors X<l), ... , X(q) are
mutually independently distriruted, that is, that the density of X factors into
the densities of X(ll, ... , X<q). It is
q
(4) H: n(xl .... ,:1:) = fln(x(!)I ....(i), :1:;;).
I'" 1

If X{I), ••• , Xlq) are independent subvectors,

(5) nO)'
r-
=', =
"""I}'"
0

(Seo;; Section 2,4.) Conversely, if (5) holds, th"~n (4) is true. Thus the null
'*
hypothesis is equivalently H: I,) = 0, i j. Thi~ can be stated alternativel) as
the hypothesis that I is of the form

III 0 0
0 In 0
(6) Io=
0 0 Iqq

Given a sample Xl"'" x,y of N observations on X, the likelihood ratio

9.2 LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION FOR INDEPENDENCE OF SETS 383

criterion is

A = max ... ,I. o L(p., 1: 0 )

(7)
max ... ,I. L(I-I-, 1:) ,

where

(8) L(I-I-, I) = nN

0%'" 1
!
(2'IT) zPI IP
I e- }(xn- ... n; .I(xn - ... )

and L(I-I-, 1: 0) is L(I-I-, 1:) with 1: ij = 0, i:# j, and where the maximum is taken
with respect to all vectors 1-1- and positive definite I and 1:0 (i.e., 1:(1)' As
derived in Section 5.2, Equation (6),

(9)

where

(10)

Under the null hypothesis,

'I
(11) L(p., Io) = n L[(I-I-(I), I,l)'
i'" 1

where

(12) (f)
L {(. .II,.
~
..... '
) -
-
nN
1
(2 'IT ) !PII ~
e _l(x(l)_ .. (I»)·I.-~x(l)-
2 ...... 1/........ (I))
, II
0%=1 ..... ri 112 .

Clearly
q
(13) maxL(I-I-' Io)
fL. I.o
= n max L/(..-.(,), 1: u)
i= 1 fLit), I."

where

(14)
384 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

If we partition A and I u as we have I,

All AI2 A 1q ill ll2 i 1q

Au A22 A 2q l21 l22 I 2q
(15) A= lu=

Aql Aq2 Aqq Iql Iq2 Iqq

we see that l iiw = Iii = (1/N)Aij'

The likelihood ratio criterion is

maxp.. Ion L( ..... , Io) liultN IAlt N

( 16) A=
maxp..1o L( ..... , I)
= 'N =
nr=,IAal z'N'
A
Ol_IIIjll'
The critical region of the likelihood ratio test is

( 17) AS; A( e),

where ,l(e) is a number such that the prob~bility of (17) is e with "I = Io. (It
remains to show that such a number c~n be found.) Let

( 18)

Then A = Vt N is a monotonic increasing fu nction of V. The critical region

(17) can be equivalently written as

( 19) Vs; V(e).

Theorem 9.2.1. Let x I' ... , X N be a sample of N observations drawn from

N( ..... , I), where X a ' ..... , and I are partitioned into PI'" ., Pq rows (and columns
in the case of I) as indicated in (1), (2), and (3). The likelihood ratio .:riterion
that the q sets of components are mutually independent is given by (16), where A
is defined by (10) and partitioned according to (15). The likelihood ratio test is
given by (17) and equivalently by (19), where V is defined by (18) and ACe) or
V(e) is chosen to obtain the significance level e.

Since rl) = a,/ ~ anal) , we have

p
(20) IAI = IRI n au,
i=1
9.2 LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION FOR INDEPENDENCE OF SETS 385

where

Rll RI2 R lq
R21 R22 R 2q
(21) R=(r,j)=

Rql Rq2 Rqq

and
PI + ..• +p,

(22) IAIII = IRJ,I n

j=PI+ ··+p,_.+1
a)) •

Thus

IAI IRI
(23) V= [1:1 R) .
nlAu!
That is, V can be expressed entirely in terms of sample correlation coeffi-
cients.
We can interpret the criterion V in terms of generalized variance. Each
set (x II' ... , xi N) can be considered as a vector in N -space; the let (x II -
Xi"'" X,N - X) = Zi' say, is the projection on the plane orthogonal to the
equiangular line. The determinant IAI is the p-dimensional volume squared
of the parallelotope with Zh"" zp as principal edges. The determinant IAIII
is the ptdimensional volume squared of the parallelotope having as principal
edges the ith set of vectors. If each set of vectors is orthogonal to each other
set (Le., R jj = 0, i =1= j), then the volume squared IAI is the product of tht:
volumes squared IAiil. For example, if P = 2, PI == P2 = 1, this statement is
that the area of a parallelogram is the product of the lengths of the sides
if the sides are at right angles. If the sets are almost orthogonal, then IAI
n
is almost IA ), and V is almost 1.
The criterion has an invariance property. Let C, be an arbitrary nonsingu-
lar matrix of order PJ and let

C1 0 0
0 C2 0
(24) C=
0 0 Cq

Let Cx", + d = x:. Then the criterion for independence in terms of is x:

identical to the criterion in terms of x",. Let A* = La(X: -i*Xx: -x*)' he
386 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

partitioned into submatrices A~). Then

(25) A*I) = ~
I..J (X"-lIl
u
-- X*PI)(X*()
u
a

=C "I~
~ (Xl,)
n"
- rP»)(x(Jl
n
x())' C)'

and A'" = CAC'. Thus

V* = IA*I ICAC'I
(26)
OIA;~1 OIC,AIIC;1

ICI'IAI'IC'I IAI
=V
OIC,I'IA,J~IC:1 - OIA)

for ICI =OIC,I. Thus the test is invariant with respect to linear transforma-
tions within each set.
Narain (950) showed that the test based on V is strictly unbiased; that is,
the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis is greater than the significance
level if the hypothesis is not true. [See also Daly (940).]

9.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION

WHEN THE NULL HYPOTHESIS IS TRUE

9.3.1. Characterization of the Distribution

We shall show that under the null hypothesis the distribution of the criterion
V is the distribution of a product of independent variables, each of which has
lhe distribution of a criterion U for the linear hypothesis (Section 8.4).
Let

AlI A LI •I AI,

A, _1.1 A , - Ll - I A , _1 I

A/I Al • , - I Au
(1) V=
I
i- 2, ... , q.
All Al. I - 1

-IAlIl
A,-J,J A ,- LI - 1
93 DISTRIBUfION OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 387

Then V = vi V3 ... Vq • Note that V, is the N /2th root of the likelihood ratio
criterion for testing the null hypothesis

(2) HI :Id =O, ... ,Ii.j_1 =0,

that is, that X(I) is independent of (X(I)', ... ,X(,-l)'),. The null hypothesis
H is the intersection of these hypotheses.

When H j is !rut.,
Theorem 9.3.1. v:
has the distribution of Upl'p,.n_p" where
n =N-1 andpj=PI + ... +Pi-I, i=2, ... ,q.

Proof The matrix A has the distribution of L:=IZaZ~, where ZI"",Zn

are jndependently distributed according to N(O, I) and Za is partitioned as
(Z~I)/, ... ,z~q)/)/. Then cnnditional on Z~J) =z~I), ... ,Z~-I) =Z~-I), a=
1, ... , n, the subvectors Z\l/, ... , Z~i) are independently distributed, Z~) hav-
ing a normal distribution with mean

(3)

and covariance matrix

( 4)

where

(5)
Ii-I.I

When the null hypotheris is not assumed, the estimator of P, is (5) with Ijk
replaced by A ik , and the estimator of (4) is (4) with Ijk replaced by (l/n)A jk
and P, replaced by its estimator. Under H j : Pi = 0 and the covariance matrix
(4) is Iii' which is estimated by (l/n)A ij • The N /2th root of the likelihood
388 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

ratio criterion for H, is

-I

( 6)
IAi,1

Ai_I , I A,-I.i-I
Ail A",_I
=~----------------~----~
All
'IAiil
Ai-I,i-I

which is v,.
This is the U~statistic for Pi dimensions, Pi components of the
conditioning vector, and n - p, degrees of fteedom in the estimator of the
covariance matrix. •

Theorem 9.3.2. The distribution of V under the null hypothesis is the

distribution of V2 V3 ... Vq, where V2 " •• , Vq are independently distributed with V;
having the distribution of UpI,PI,n _P,' where Pi = PI + ... + Pi-I'

Proof From the proof of Theorem 9.3.1, we see that the distribution of V;
is that of Upl,PI. n _P, not depending on the conditioning Z~k), k = 1, ... , i-I,
a = 1, ... , n. Hence the distribution of V; does not depend on V2 ' " ' ' V,-I'
•
Theorem 9.3.3. Under the null hypothesis V is distributed as n{=2 nf~1 Xii'
where the X;/s are independent and Xi) has the density J3[xl Hn - Pi + 1 -
]') ,W,
1-].

Proof This theorem follows from Theorems 9.3.2 and 8.4.1. •

9.3.2. Moments

Theorem 9.3.4. When the null hypothesis is true, the h th moment of the
criterion is

{PI r[!(n- Pi +l-j)+h Jr U(n+l-j)])

(7) ctV -}]
h_ q
lJ r[Hn-Pi+ 1 -j)]r[4(n+l-j)+h] .
9.3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE UKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION 389

Proof Because V2 , ••• , Vq are independent,

(8)

Theorem 9.3.2 implies ct.'V,h=cFU):.P,.Il_fi: Then the theorem follows by

substituting from Theorcm 8.4.3. •

If the PI are even, say p, = 2 r l , i > I, then by using the duplication formula
rcex + ~)I'( ex + 1) = .;; f(2 ex + 1)2 - ~ for the gamma function WI: can rl:-
II

auce the hth moment of V to

(9) (%V , =
'
Ii {n r(n + 1- PI - 2k + 2h)rCn + 1 - 2k) )
i=2 k=1 r{n + 1- PI - 2k)f(n + 1 - 2k + 211)

=
q
[! (
Dr,
S--I(n + 1- p, - 2k,Pi)

-j~IX11+I-P,-2k+211-1(1_X)P,-1 dt).
Thus V is distributed as f1{_2{f1~'~ I Y,n, where the Y,k are independent. and
Y,k has density /3(y; n + 1 - PI - 2k, p,).
In general, the duplication formula for the gamma function can be used to
reduce the moments as indicated in Section 8.4.

9.3.3. Some Special Distributions

If q = 2, then V is distributed as Up~'PI.n-PI' Special cases have been treated
in Section 8.4, and references to the literature given. The distribution for
PI = P2 = P3 = 1 is given in Problem 9.2, and for PI = P2 = PJ = 2 in Prohlem
9.3. Wilks (1935) gave the distributions for PI = P2 = I, for P-:. = P - 2,t for
PI = 1, Pz = P3 = 2, for PI = 1, P2 = 2, P3 = 3, for PI = I, PI = 2, P:. = 4, and
f,)r PI = P2 = 2, P3 = 3. Consul (1967a) treated the case PI = 2, P2 = 3, P~
even.
Wald and Brookner (1941) gave a method for deriving the distribution if
not more than one Pi is odd. It can be seen that the same result can be
obtained by integration of products of beta functions after using the duplica-
tion formula to reduce the moments.
Mathai and Saxena (1973) gave the exact distribution for the general case.
Mathai and Katiyar () (79) gave exact significancl: point:; for p = 3(1) 10 and
n = 3(1)20 for significance levels of 5% and 1% (of - k log V of Section 9.4).

tIn Wilks's form Iia n~(N - 2- mshould he n~(/l - 2 - ;)1

390 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

9.4. A.N ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE

LIKELIHOOD RATIO CRITERION

The hth moment of A = vtN is

(1)
(.~AIt=K o;_Ir{HN(I+h)-i]}
ni-l{nJ~lr{HN(1 +h) _ill} 1

where K is chosen so that $Ao = 1. This is of the form of (1) of Section 8.5
with

a=p, b =p,

( 2) 1})
-i +
= ----"--"-,.--.;;...;....,.;..

i = P 1 + ... + P, L + I, ... , PI + ... + PI' i = 1, ... , q.

Then f = !lp(p + 1) - Ep;(p, + I)] = Hp2 - Epn, 13k = Sf = ~(1 - p)N.

In order to make the second term in the expansion vanish we take p as

(3)

Let

Then W z = 'Y2/k2, where [as shown by Box (1949)]

(p3 _ Ep;)2
(5)
72(p2 - Ep,2) .

We obtain from Section 8.5 the following expansion:

(6) Pr{-klogV::::;v}=Pr{x!::::;v}

+ ;; [Pr{ X!+4 ::::; v} -- Pr{ xl::::; v}] + O(k- 3).

9.5 OTHER CRITERIA 391

Table 9.1
Second
p f v 'Y2 N k 'Y2/ k2 Term
11 71
4 6 12.592 24 15 6" 0.0033 0.0007
IS 69
5 10 18.307 a- 15 T 0.0142 -v.OO21
6 15 24.996 235
15 fil 00393 -0.0043
48 6
7:1
16 '6 0.0331 -0.0036

If q = 2~ we obtain further terms in the expansion by using the results of

Section 8.5.
If Pi = 1~ we have

f~' !p(p - 1),

2p
k=N_ ;11,

(7)
'Y2 = p( i8~ 1) (2p2 - 2p - 13),

'Y3= p(j;Ol) (p-2)(2p-1)(p+l);

other terms are given by Box (1949). If Pi = 2 (p = 2q)

f= 2q(q - 1),

(8) k = N _ 4q ; 13,

'Y2 = q( q7~ 1) (8q2 - 8q - 7).

Table 9.1 gives an indication of the order of approximation of (6) for

Pi = 1. In each case v is chosen so that the first term is 0.95.
If q = 2, the approximate distributions given in Sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4 are
available. [See also Nagao (1973c).]

9.5. OTHER CRITERIA

In case q = 2~ the criteria considered in Section 8.6 can be used with G + H

replaced by All and H replaced by A12 A 221A 211 or G + H replaced by A22
and H replaced by A 21 A,/A 12 •
392 TESTING INDEPENDENCEOF SETS OF VARIATES

The null hypothesis of independence is that "I - "Io = 0, where "Io is

defined in (6) of Section 9.2 .. An appropriate test procedure will reject the
null hypothesis if the elements of A - Ao are large compared to the elements
of the diagonal blocks of Au (where Ao is composed of diagonal blocks Ai;
and off-diagonal blocks of 0). Let the nonsingular matrix B i , be such that
Bi,A,iB:'i = I, that is, A~l = B~,B,;, and let Bo be the matrix with Bi; as the
ith diagonal block and O's as off-diagonal blocks. Then BoAoB~ = I and

() 1111 A IllI~l 1IIIAI"n;{,{

B22A2L B'LL 0 B22A2qB~q
(1) Bo(A -Ao)Bo =

BqqAqLB'LL BqqAq2B~ 0

This matrix is invariant with respect to transformations (24) of Section 9.2

operating on A. A different choice of B 'i amounts to multiplying (1) on the
left by Q o and on the right by Q~, where Qo is a matrix with orthogonal
diagonal blocks and off-diagonal blocks of O's. A test procedure should reject
the null hypothesis if some measure of the numerical values of the elements
of (1) is too large. The likelihood ratio criterion is the N /2 power of
IBo(A - Ao)B~ + II = IBoAB~I. /
Another measure, suggested by Nagao (I973a), is

q
=~ E trA,)A)~LAi,A~l.
I,)=1
;*J

FOI q =2this measure is the average of the Bartiett-Nanda-Pillai trace

criterion with G + H replaced by All and H replaced by A12A22lA2l and the
same criterion with G + H replaced by A22 and H replaced by A2lAilLA12.
This criterion multiplied by n or N has a limiting X2-distribution with
number of degrees of freedom f= t(p2 - "E.?= I pl), which is the same
nU'11ber as for - N log V. Nagao obtained an asymptotic expansion of the
distribution:

(3) PrOn tr( MOl - 1)2 ~x}

= Pr{ xl ~x}
1 (3
+ n1 [ 12 p - ~ 2+ 2;~
3P ;:-; Pi ~ p;3) Pr {2
X/+6 ~x
}
9.6 STEP~DOWN PROCEDURES 393

+ ~ ( -2p' + 4p i~ p,' - 2;~ p,' - p' + ;~ p;' )pr( xl•• :sx)

+ ~ k-P,~ p,' + p' - ,~p,' )Pr( xl., :sx)
- ~ f2p3 -
\
2.E pl + 3p
1=1
2- t
3 P12) Pr{ xl : ; x}j + O( n -:! ) •
/=1

9.6. STEP·DOWN PROCEDURES

9.6.1. Step-down by Blocks

It was shown in Section 9.3 that the N 12th root of the likelihood ratio
criterion, namely V, LS the product of q - 1 of these criteria, that is,
V2 , ••• , Vq • Th~ ith subcriterion V. provides a likelihood ratio test of the
hypothesis Hi [(2) of Section 9.3] that the ith subvector is independent of the
preceding i-I subvectors. Under the null hypothesis H [I=: n (=2 H,), these
q - 1 criteria are independent (Theorem 9.3.2). A step-down testing proce-
dure is to accept the null hypothesis if

(1) i = 2 .... ,q.

and reject the null hypothesis if V. < v,C s,) for any i. Here v,C 8,) is the
number such that the probability of (1) when H, is true is 1 - s" The
significance level of the procedure is 8 satisfying
q
(2) 1- 8 = n (1 -
;=2
8/) •

The subtests can be done sequentially, say, in the order 2, ... , q. As soon as a
subtest calls for rejection, the procedure is terminated; if no subtest leads to
rejection, H is accepted. The ordering of the subvectors is at the discretion
of the investigator as well as the ordering of the tests.
Suppose, for example, that measurements on an individual are grouped
i.nto physiological measurements, measurements of intelligence, and mea-
surements of emotional characteristics. One could test that intelligence is
independent of physiology and then that emotions are independent of
physiology and intelligence, or the order of these could be reversed, Alterna-
tively, one could test that intelligence is independent of emotions and then
that physiology is independent of these two aspects, or the order reversed.
There is a third pair of procedures.
394 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

Other' criteria for the linear hypothesis discussed in Section 8.6 can be
used to test the compo nent hypotheses H 2' .•• , H q in a similar fashion.
When HI is true, the criterion is distributed independently of X~l), •• " X~i-l),
ex = L ... , N, and hence independently of the criteria for H 2" " , H,-l'

9.6.2. Step-down by Components

In Section 8.4.5 we discussed a componentwise step-down procedure for
testing that a submatrix of regression coefficients was a specified matrix. We
adapt this procedure to test the null hypothe~is Hi cast in the form
-I
III 112 Il,i-l

... 121 In 1 2,1-1

(3) HI :(1'1 1'2 II,,-d =0,

1,-1.1 I i -I,1 I;-l,i-l

where 0 is of order Pi XP 1 , The matrix in (3) consists of the coefficients of the

regression of XU) on (X(l)I"", XU-I) 1)1,
For i = 2, we test in sequence whether the regression of X PI + I on X(I) =
(Xl"'" Xp/ is 0, whether the regression of XPI +2 on X(l) is 0 in the
regression of X PI +2 on X(l) and X PI + I' ' , " a ld whether the regression of
XPI+P~ on x(l) is 0 in the regression of X PI + P2 on X(l), X pl + l " '" XPI+P2-1'
These hypotheses are equivalently that the first, second,.", and P2th rows
of the matrix in (3) for i = 2 are O~vectors.
Let A~~) be the k X k matrix in the upper left~hand corner of A ii , let A~~)
consist of the upper k rows of Ai)' and let A)7) consist of the first k columns
of A}" k = 1" .. , p,. Then the criterion for testing that the first row of (3) is 0
IS

( 4)
All
X - A(l) - (A(I) ... A(I») •
,I- /I " ",-I .
(
A'_I.I

All AI,,_I AU>

II

A(I)
Ai-II A,-I,,-I ,-I,'
A(l) A(l) A(l)
il "i-I II

All Al,,-l
A(I)
/I

A,_1.1 A,-l.,-l
9.6 STEP-DOWN PROCEDURES 395

For k> 1, the criterion for testing that the kth row of the matrix in (3) is 0 is
[see (8) in Section 8.4]

(5)

Ai 1,1

A(k)
Ai-I,l Ai-l,,-I i-l,(
(k) A(k) A(k)
A il i,I-1 Ii IA~~-l)1
=+------------------------+ ,
t(k-l)
Al,l-I • Ii IA~7)1

A(k-l)
Ai-I,I Ai-I,i-I i-I. i
A(k-I) A(k-I) A<~-l)
it 1,1-1 /I

k = 2, ... , Pi' i = 2, ... , q.

Under the null hypothesis the criterion has the beta density .B[x;~(n - PI + 1
- j),iPJ For given i, the criteria X,I'"'' X,p, are independent (Theorem
8.4.1). The sets for different i are independent by the argument in Section
9.6.1.
A step-down procedure consists of a sequence of tests based on
X 21'·' ., X 2P2 ' X 3P "" X{fP,/ A particular component test leads to rejection if

1 - Xij n - Pi + 1 - j
(6) X. - P > Fp,.n-p,+l_j(e,j)'
I) 1

The significance level is e, where

(7)
396 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

The sr~quence of subvectors and the sequence of components within each

subvector is at the discretion of the investigator.
The criterion V; for testing Hi is V; = Of!" I X ik , and criterion for the null
hypothesis H is
q q PI
(8) V= n~=
;""2
n nX
{""2 k::l
ik ·

These are the random variables described in Theorem 9.3.3.

9.7. AN EXAMPLE

We take the following example from an industrial time study [Abruzzi

(I950)]. The purpose of the study was to investigate the length of time taken
by various operators in a garment factory to do several elements of a pressing
operation. The entire pressing operation was divided into the following six
elements:

1. Pick up and position garment.

2. Press and repress short dart.
3. Reposition garment on ironing board.
4. Press three-q~rters of length of long dart.
5. Press balance of long dart.
6. Hang garment on rack.

In this case xa is the vector of measurements on individual a. The compo-

nent x ia is the time taken to do the ith element of the operation. N is 76.
The data (in seconds) are summarized in the sample mean vector and
covariance matrix:

9.47
25.56
(1) X= 13.25
31.44 .
27.29
8.80
2.57 0.85 1.56 1.79 1.33 0,42
0.85 37.00 3.34 13.47 7.59 0.52
1.5b 3.34 8.44 5.77 2.00 0.50
(2) s= 1.79 13.47 5.77 34.01 10.50 1.77
1.33 7.59 2.00 10.50 23.01 3.43
0,42 0.52 0.50 1.77 3.43 4.59
>.8 THE CASE OF TWO SETS OF VARIATES 397

The sample standard deviations are (1.604,6.041,2.903,5.832,4.798.2.141).

The sample correlation matrix is
1.000 0.088 0.334 0.191 0.173 0.123
0.088 1.000 0.186 0.384 0,262 0.040
(3) R= 0.334 0.186 1.000 0.343 0.144 0.080
0.191 0.384 0.343 1.000 0.375 0.142
0.173 0.262 0.144 0.375 1.000 0.334
0.123 0.040 0.080 0.142 0.334 1.000
The investigators are interested in testing the hypothesis that the six
variates are mutually independent. It often happens in time studies that a
new operation is proposed in which the elements are combined in a different
way; the new operation may use some of the elements several times and some
elements may be omitted, If the times for the different elements in the
operation for which data are available are independent, it may reasonably be
assumed that they will be independent in a new operation. Then the
distribution of time for the new operation can be estimated by using the
means and variances of the individual item:;.
In this problem the criterion V is V = IRI === 0.472. Since the sample size is
large we can use asymptotic theory: k = 4~3, f = 15, and - k log V = 54.1.
Since the significance pOint for the x2-distribution with 15 degrees of
freedom is 30.6 at the 0.01 significance level, we find the result significant.
VI'e reject the hypothesis of independence; we cannot consider the times of
the elements independent.

9.S. THE CASE OF lWO SETS OF VARlATES

In the case of two sets of variates (q = 2), the random vector X, the
observation vector x a ' the mean vector .." and the covariance matrix l: are
partitioned as follows:

X=
( x(l)
X(2)
1
, x" = x~) 1,
(x'"
(1) ,
.., (~'l)
..,
(2)
)
, 1:~l1:11 1:" ).
:t21 l:22

The null hypothesis of independence specifies that :t 12 = 0, that il\, that :I is

of the form

(2)
398 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF" SETS OF" VARIATES

The test criterion is

(3)

It was shown in Section 9.3 that when the null hypothesis is true, this
criterion is distributed as UPI • p~. N-l-p 2' the criterion for testing a hypothesis
about regression coefficients (Chapter 8). We now wish to study further the
relationship between testing the hypothesis of independence of two sets and
testing the hypothesis that regression of one set on the other is zero.
The conditional distribution of X~I) given X~Z) = X~2) is N[JL(I) + t3(x~) -
JL(2»), !.1l,2] = N(t3(X~2) - i(2») + 11, !.l1.z]' where 13 = !.12!.221, !.U'2 =
!'JI - !.12!.221!.21' and 11 = JLO) + t3(x(Z) - JL(2»). Let X: = X!:rl ) , z!' = [(X~2)­
Xl:!»)' 1]. it = (13 11), and !.* = !.U.2' Then the conditional distribution of X:
is N(it z!, !.*). This is exactly the distribution studied in Chapter 8.
The null hypothesis that!' 12 = 0 is equivalent to the null hypothesis 13 = O.
Considering x;) fiXed, we know from Chapter 8 that the criterion (based on
the likelihood ratio criterion) for testing this hypothesis is

(4)

where

(5)

= ( LX* z*(I),
\ Q (r

. -,
mil)) (A~2
~)
= (A 12 An' f(I)),

The matrix in the denominator of U is

N
( 6) '" (x P ) - xtl))(x(l) - x(l»)' == A II'
'-' '" <r
a"l
9.8 THE CASE OF TWO SETS OF VARIATES 399

The matrix in the numerator is

N
(7) ~
L.J
[X(1) - X(1) - A A -1 (X(2) -
a 12 22 CI'
X(2))"1 [X(l) -
"0'
.t(1) - A
12
A -1 (X(2) - i(2) )]'
22 a
a=l

Therefore,

IAI
( 8)

which is exactly V.
Now let us see why it is tha~ when the null hypothesis ls true the
distribution of U = V does not depend on whether the Xi2) are held fIx·!d. It
was shown in Chapter 8 that when the null hypothesis is true the di3tribu"Lion
of U depends only on p, q}> and N - q2' not on Za' Thus the conditional
distribution of V given X~2) = x~"2) does not depend on xi2); the joint dlstribu·
tion of V and X~2) is the product of the distribution of V and the distribution
of X~2), and the marginal distribution of V is this conditional distribution.
This shows that the distribution of V (under the null hypothesis) does not
depend on whether the Xi2) are fIxed or have any distribution (normal or
not).
We can extend this result to show that if q> 2, the distribution of V
under the null hypothesis of independence does not depend on the distribu·
tion of one set of variates, say X~1). We have V = V2 ••• Vq , where V. is
defined in (1) of Section 9.3. When the null hypothesis is true, Vq is
distributed independently of X~t), ... , X~q-l) by the previous result. In turn
we argue that l-j is distributed independently of X~l), ... , X~) -1). Thus
V2 ... Vq is distributed independently of X~l).

Theorem 9.S.1. Under the null hypothesis of independence, the distribution

of V is that given earlier in this chapter if q - 1 sets are jointly normally
distributed, even though one set L~ not normally distributed.

In the case of two sets of variates, we may be interested in a measure of

association between the two sets which is a generalization of the correlation
coefficient. The square of the correlation between two scalars Xl and X 2
can be considered as the ratio of the variance of the regression of Xl on X 2
to the variance of Xl; this is 'Y( f3X2)/'Y(XI) = f3 2u 22 / Un = (UI~/ ( 22 )/ Un
= P~2' A corresponding measure for vectors X( I) and X(2) is the ratio of the
generalized variance of the regression of X(l) on X(2) to the generalized
400 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

variance of X(I), namely,

(9)
IJ'PX(2)(I3X(2»/1 IP~22P/1 II 12 ~2i 121 I
I~lll = 11111 = IIIlI
o 112

~21 I22
=( 1) P 1 -'--.,--,-......,.--.""':'

If PI = P2' the measure is

(10)

In a sense this measure shows how well X(1) can be predicted from X (2) •
In the case of two scalar variables XI and X 2 the coefficient of alienation
is al 21 a}, where fTl~2 =- $(XI - f3X2)2 is the variance of XI about it:.
regression on X 2 when $X! = CX 2 = 0 and J'(XI IX2 )= f3X 2 • In the case of
two vectors X(I) and X(21, the regression matrix is p = I 12 ~221, and the
general~ed variance of X(I) about its regression on X(2) is

(11)

Since the generalized variance of Xm is I $ X(l) X (I) I I = II 111. the vector

coefficient of alienation is

IIIl - ~12I221 I2d

( 12)
1~1l1

The sample equivalent of (2) is simply V.

A measure of association is 1 minus the coefficient of alienation. Either of
these two measures of association can be modified to take account of the
number of components. In the first case, one can take the PIth root of (9); in
the second case, one can subtract the Pith root of the coefficient of
alienation from 1. Another measure of association is

tr $ [13X(2)(13X(2»,] ( $ X(1)X(I) I) -I = tr ~12 Iri I21 I HI

(13)
P P
Th1~ meru.ure of association ranges between 0 and 1. If X(I) can be predicted
exactly from X (2) for PI ::::;, P2 (Le., 1 11 .2 = 0), then this measure is 1. If no
linear combination of X(l) can be predictl!d exactly, this measure is O.
9.9 ADMISSI SlUTI:' OF THE Ln~LI HOOD RATIO TEST 401

9.9. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST

The admissibility of the likelihood ratio test in the case of the 0-1 loss
function can be proved by showing that it is the Bayes procedure with respect
to an appropriate a priori distribution of the parameters. (See Section 5.6.)

Theorem 9.9.1. The likelihood ratio teSt of the hypothesis that I is of the
form (6) of Sel"tion 9.2 is Hayes (lml admis.'Iih/e if N > p + 1.

Proof. We shall show that the likelihood ratio test is equivalent to rejec-
tion of the hypothesis when

(1) ------~c,

where x represents the sample, 8 reprc:-;cnts the paramcter~ (Il- and I),
f(xi8) is the density, and ITl and no
are proportional to probability mea-
sures of 8 under the alternative and null hypotheses, respectively. Specifi.
cally, the left-hand side is to be proportional to the square root of n; 'liA"i /
IAI.
To define ITl' let

(2) Il- = (I + W') -Ivy,

where the p-component random vector V has the density proportional to

(t + v'v)- tn, n = N - 1, and the conditional distribution of Y given V v is
N[O,(1 +v'v)jN]. Note that the integral of (1 +V1V)-~'1 is finite if n>p
(Problem 5.15). The numerator of (1) is then

(3) const /,0 ... /,0 II +

_ 00 _00
vv'! ~N

. exp { - ~ E
a~]
[x a - ( I + vv' r ry] ,(I +
1 Vt") [ x" - (I + vv' r :l~} ])
402 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

The exponent in the integrand of (3) is - 2 times

(4)
a=1 a""l
N N
= E X~Xa+V' E xax~v-2yv'NX+Ny2
a-I a==1

= tr A + v' Av + NXI X + N(y ~ X'V)2,

where A = E~"" xux~ - ~xX'. We have used v'(/ + VV,)-I V + (1 + v'v)-1 = 1.

[from (I+VI,I,)-I =1-(1 +v'V)-I VV']. Using 11+vv'\ =- 1 +v'v (Corollary
A.3.1), we write (3) as

(5) com;te +tr.-t !N:nJ ... J e ~!"A~'dv=constlAI

:x:

- :x:
:x:

-:xl
~e-ilrA-tN.n'.

To define n () let I have the form of (6) of Section 9.2, Let

(6) l. . 'I"I,,] = [(I+V(I)V(I)I)-IV(I)Y,,(I+V(I)V(I)I)-l], i=l, ... ,q.

where the Ptcomponent random vector VO) has density proportional to

\1 + ,[,O)'v(l»)- tn, and the conditional distribution of }j given Vel) = v(i) is
N(D, (1 + v(i)' v(!»)/ N], and let (VI' Y1 ), ... , (Vq, Yq) be mutually independent.
Thcn the denominator of (1) is
q
(7) n constIA"I- ~ exp[ - Htr A'i + N,i(i)'j(I»)]
,=1

= const (Ii IA"I-~)

I'" t
exp[ - ~(tr A + N,i'j)] ,
The left-hand side of (1) is then proportkmal to the square root of
n~",tlAI!I / lAt. •
This proof has been adapted from that of Kiefer and Schwartz (1965).

9.10. MONOTONICITY OF POWER FUNCTIONS OF TESTS OF

INDEPENDENCE OF SETS

L et Z{, -- [Z(l)'
a ' Z(2)'],
a ,a -- 1,.,., n, be d'Ist£1'bute d aceo rd'mg to

( 1)
9.10 MONOTlC[TY OF POWER FUNCf[ONS 403

We want to test H: I12 = O. We suppose PI 5,P2 without loss of generality.

Let pI"'" PPI (PI:?: ... ~ pp) be the (population) canonical correlation
coefficients. (The P12 's are the characteristic roots of Il/ II21"i} I2I' Chap-
ter 12.) Let R = diag( PI'''', PPI) and ~ = [R,O] (PI XP2)'

Lemma 9.10.1. There exist matrices BI (PI XPI)' B2 (P2 XP2) such that

(2)

Proof. Let m =P2' B=B I, F' =I~2B;, S=I12I22! in Lemma 8.10.13.

Then F'F = B 2I 22 B'z = I p2 ' BII12B'z = BISF =~. •

(This lemma is also contained in Section 12.2.)

Let Xa=BIZ~Il, Yo=B2Z~2), a=l, ... ,n, and X=(xI, ... ,x n), f=
(YI'"'' y). Then (x~, y;.)', a = 1, ... , n, are independently distributed ac-
cording to

(3)

The hypothesis H: I 12 = 0 is equivalent to H: ~ = 0 (i.e., all the canonical

correlation coefficients PI"'" PPI are zero). Now given f, the vectors x a '
a = 1, ... , n, are conditionally independently distributed according to
N(~Ya' I - ~ ~') = N(~Ya' 1- R2). Then x! = U P1 - R2)- tXa is distributed
according to N(MYa' Ip) where

M=(D,O),
(4) D = diag( 8 1" " , 8p ,),

8i = pJ (1 - Pi2)! , i=l,,,,,PI'

Note that 8/ is a characteristic root of I12I22II2IIl/2' where In.2 = In

-112 I 22II 2I'
Invariant tests depend only on the (sample) canonical correlation coeffi-
cients rj = [C:, where

(5) Cj = Ai[ (X* X*') -1 (X* f')( YY') -\ YX*')].

Let

Sh = X* f'( YY') -1 yx*',

(6)
Se =X* X*' - Sh =X* [I - f'( YY') -1 f] X*'.
404 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES

Then
(7)

Now given Y, the problem reduces to the MANOV A problem and we can
apply Theorem 8.10.6 as follows. There is an orthogonal transformation
(Section 8.3.3) that carries X* to (V, V) such that Sh = VV', Se = W',
V=(UI' ... ,u/l ) . V is PI x(n -P2)' u , has the distrihution N(DiE/T),
i= 1, ... ,PI (E I being the ith column of I), and N(O, I), i=PI + 1",.,P2'
and the columns of V are independently clistributed according to N(O, I).
Then cl' ... ,c p1 are the characteristic roots of VV'(W')-l, and their distri-
bution depends on the characteristic roots of MYY' M', say, 'Tl, ... , 'Tp~. Now
from Theorem 8.10.6, we obtain the foUowing lemma.

Lemma 9.10.2. If the acceptance region of an invariant test is convex in

each column of V, given V and the other columns of V, then the conditional
pOI')er given Y increases in each characteristic root 'Tl of MYY' M'.

Proof. By the minimax property of the characteristic roots [see, e.g.,

Courant and Hilbert (953)],
x'Ax x'Bx
( 8) A, ( A) = max min
."I,
-----rx
XES, X
~ max min - ,- =
s, xroS, X X
Ai( B) ,

where 5, ranges over i-dimensional subspaces. •

Now Lemma 9.10.3 applied to MYY' M' shOWS that for every j, 'T/ is an
increasing function of 5( = pjO - pl) ~ and hence of Pi. Since the marginal
distribution of Y does not depend on the p/s, by taking the unconditional
power we obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 9.10.1. An invariant test for which the acceptance region is convex
in each column of V for each set of fixed V and other columns of V has a power
function that is monotonically increasing in each PI'

9.11. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

9.11.1. Observations Elliptical1y Contoured

Let Xl"'" XN be N observations on a random vector X with density

(1) IAI- ig [( X - v) I A-I (x - v)],

9.11 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 405

where tffR4<OO and R2=(X-v)'A- 1(x-v). Then rf'X=v and $(X-

v)( X - v)' = I = ( tff R 21p ) A. Let
_ 1 N 1 N
(2) X= N E x£l' S= N _ 1 E (xa - x)( xa oX)'.
£l=-l a=I

Then

(3) {Nwx(S-I) ~N[O,(K+ l)(Ip~+KI,p)(l:®~) -f· K vcct(wc I)']

where 1 + K=ptffR4/[(p+2)(~R2)2].
The likelihood ratio criterion for testing the null hypothesis :I,) = O. i *" j.
v.,
is the N 12th power of U = 0;=2 where V. is the U-criterion for testing the
null hypothesis Iii = 0, ... , Ii-I. ,= 0 and is given by (l) and (6) of Section
9.3. The form of Vi is that of the likelihood ratio criterion U of Chapter 8
with X replaced by XU), ~ by ~i given by (5) of Section 9.3, Z by

( 4) X(I-I) =
x(1)
: 1 '

r X(I-I)

and I by I ii under the null hypothesis ~i = O. The subvector X(I- I) is

uncorrelated with 'X(i), hut not independent of XCi) unless (i(I-I)', X(I) ')' IS
normal. Let

(5)

(6) A~(i·i-l) = (A.

rl' ' , "
A
(.1- 1
) = A~(l-I.I)I

with similar definitions of :£(1-1), :£U.I I>, S(I-1). and S(I,I-1). We write
Vi = 1Gilll G( + Hil , where

(7)
- - -I -
= (N -l)S(I·,-I)(S(t-I») S(I-I.,),

(8) Gi=AII - HI = (N l)S/I -HI'

Theorem 9.11.1. When X has the density (1) and the null hypothesis is trne.
the limiting distribution of H, is W[(1 + K ):'::'11' p,]. where PI = p I + ... + P. - J
406 TESTING INDEPF.NDENCEOF SETS OF VARIATES

alld p) is the number of components of X(J).

Proof Since 1(1·1-1) = 0, we have J,"S(I.t I) = 0 and

(9)

if i.1 5:p, and k, m > Pi or if j, I> p,. and k, m 5:Pi' and <!SjkSlm = 0 other-
wise (Theorem 3.6.1). We can write

Since SO-I) - p :I0-l) and /NvecS(I.'-1) has a limiting normal distribution,

Theorem 9.10.1 follows by (2) of Section 8.4. •

Theorem 9.11.2. Ullder the conditions of Theorem 9.11.1 when the null
hypothesis is true

cI 2
(11 ) - N log II; - (1 + K) Xl1.p,'

Proof We can write V, = II +N-1(iJG)-1 HII and use N logll + N- 1 cl =

tr C + Op(N- 1 ) and

Because XU) is uncorrelated with g(l-I) when the null hypothesis

H, : I.(l.'~ 1) = O. II; is asymptotically independent of V2 , ••• , V,-l' When the
null hypotheses H 2 , ••• , Hi are true, II; is asymptotically independent of
V:, ... . J.~-I' It follows from Theorem 9.10.2 that

q d
(13) -N log V= -N 12 log V, - xl,
j., 2

where f= Ef-2PIPi = Mp(p + 1) - E?=l p,(p, + 1)]. The likelihood ratio test
of Section 9.2 can be carried out on an asymptotic basis.
9.11 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 407

g
(14) ~tr(AA() I -If = t t tr A'JAj~lAJiA,~1
i,/=-1
i¢f

has the xl-distribution when ~ = diag(~l1>"" ~qq)' The step-down proce-

dure of Section 9.6.1 is also justified on an asymptotic basis.

9.11.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Let f (p X N) have the density g(tr YY'). The matrix f is vector-spherical;
that is, vec f is spherical and has the stochastic representation vec f =
R vec UpXN ' where R2 = (vee f)' vee f = tr YY' and vec UpXN has the uniform
distribution on the unit sphere (vec UpXN )' vec UpXN = 1. (We use the nota-
tion U"XN to distinguish f'om U uniform on the space UU' = 1/).
Let

(15) X= ve'N + Cf,

where A = CC' and C is lower triangular. Then X has the density

(16) IAI"N/2gttrC- 1 (X- ve'N)(X' - e Nv')(C,)]-1

IAI- N/ 2gttr(X' -env')A-1(X- ve N)].

Consider the null hypothesis ~i} = 0, i"* j, or alternatively Ai}:::t 0, i"* j, or

alternatively, R ,} 0, i"* j. Then C = diag(C 11 ••••• Cqq ).
Let M=I,v-(1/N)e Ne'N; since M2=M, M is an idempot.!nt matrix
with N - 1 characteristic roots 1 and one root O. Then A = XMX' and
Ali = XU) MX(i)l. The likelihood function is

(17) I AI- Il / 2g{tr A-I [A + N(x- v){x- v)']}.

The matrix A and the vector x are sufficient statistics, and the likelihood
ratio criterion for the hypothesis His (IAI/nf=,IA,iI)N/2, the same as for
normality. See Anderson and Fang (1990b).

Theorem 9.11.3. Let f(X) be a vector-valued function of X (p X N) such

that

(18)
408 TESfING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARIATES
./
for all v and

(19) J(KX) =J(X)

for all K = diag(K ll , ... , Kqq). Then the distribution of J(X), where X has the
arbitrary density (16), is the same as the distribution of J(X), where X has the
nonnal density (16).

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.5.4. •

It follows from Theorem 9.11.3 that V has the same distribution under the
null hypothesis H when X has the density (16) and for X normally dis-
tributed since V is invariant under the transformation X -+ KX. Similarly, J.t:
and the criterion (14) are invariant, and hence have the distribution under
normality.

PROBLEMS

9.1. (Sec. 9.3) Prove

by integration of Vhw(AI I o• n). Hint: Show

q
rev h
=
K(Io,n)
K(I +2h)
j ".
jn IA;,I
<
-h
w(A,Io,n+2h)dA,
o,n 1=1

where K(I, n) is defined by w(AI I, n) = K(I, n)IAI hll-p-I) e- ttr"1 ~ I A. Use

Theorem 7.3.5 to show

~V
II
=
K(Io,n)
K(I + 2h)
n [K(IIl,n
q

K(I)
+2h) j j ( ]
", w Alii Iii' n) dA/i .
0' n n
<

1= I II'

9.2. (Sec. 9.3) Prove that if PI = P2 = P3 = 1 [Wilks (1935)]

Pr {V:::; v} = Iv [ ~ (n - 1), ~ ] + 2 B- 1[ ~ (n - 1), ~ ]sin -I f1 - v .

[Hint: Use Theorem 9.3.3 and Pr{V:::; v} = 1 - Pr{v:::; V}.]

PROBLEMS 409

9.3. (Sec. 9.3) Prove that if PI = P:! = P3 = 2 [Wilks (1935)]

Pr(V:=;;u} =1.;u{n-5,4)

+B-'Cn - \4)u t(n-S){n/6 - %en - 1){U - ~Cn - 4)u

-1Cn - 2)ulogu- hn-3)uJ/210gu}.

[Hint: Use (9).]

9.4. (Sec. 9.3) Derive some of the distributions obtained by Wilks t 1l)~5) and
referred to at the end of Section 9.3.3. [Hint: In addition to the results for
Problems 9.2 and 9.3, use those of Section 9.3.2.]

9.5. (Sec. 9.4) For the case p, = 2, express k and Y2' Compute the second term or
(6) when u is chosen so that the first term is 0.95 fOr P = 4 and 6 and N = 15.

9.6. (Sec. 9.5) Prove that if BAR = CAC' = I for A positive definite and Band C
I

nonsingular then B = QC where Q is orthogonal.

9.7. (Sec. 9.5) Prove N times (2) has a limiting X2-distribution with f degrees of
freedom under the null hypothesis.

9.8. (Sec. 9.8) Give the sample vector coefficient of alienation and the vector
correlation coefficient.

9.9. (Sec. 9.8) If Y is the sample vector coefficient of alienation and z the square
of the vector correlation coefficient. find ~ yR z I, when ~ I ~ "" o.

9.10. (Sec. 9.9) Prove

1
f ... f
00 00
I dUI'" du <x
,_00 _00 (1 + "P
'-1= I
u~),r
I
p

I'f P < n. [H'mt.. Le t Yj -- w) Y1 + "(' '-,=j+ I Yi2, 'J -- 1, ...• p- , Il l'. turn. 1

9.11. Let xI;::' arithmetic speed, x2::: arithmetic power, x~ = intellectual interest.
x 4 = soc al interest, Xs = activity interest. Kelley (1928) observed the following
correlations between batteries of tests identified as above, based on 109 pupils:

1.0000 0.4249 -0.0552 - 0.0031 0.1927

0.4249 1.0000 -0.0416 0.0495 0.0687
- 0.0552 -0.0416 1.0000 0.7474 0,1691
- 0.0031 0.0495 0.7474 1.0000 0.2653
0.1927 0.0687 0.1691 0.2653 1.0000
410 TESTING INDEPENDENCE OF SETS OF VARlATES

Let x tl }, = (.r l • .1: 2 ) and x(~\r = (.1: 3 , X-l' x.:J Test the hypothesis that x(1) is
independent of Xl::} at the 1% significance level.

9.12. Cany out the same exercise on the dutu in Prohlem 3.42.

9.13. Another set of time-study data [Abruzzi (1950)] is summarized by the correla-
tion matrix based on 188 observations:

1.00 -0.27 0.06 0.07 0.02

-0.27 1.00 0.01 ~0.02 -0.02
0.06 -om 1.00 -0.07 -0.04
0.07 -0.02 -0.07 1.00 -0.10
0.02 -0.02 -0.04 -0.10 1.00

Test the hypothesis that (Tlj 0, i *' j, at the 5% significance level.

CHAPTER 10

Testing Hypotheses of Equality

of Covariance Matrices and
Equality of Mean Vectors and
Covariance Matrices

10.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we study the problems of testing hypotheses of equality of

covariance matrices and equality of both covariance matrices and mean
vectors. In each case (except one) the problem and tests considered are
multivariate g~neralizations of a univariate problem and test. Many of the
tests are likelihood ratio tests or modifications of likelihood ratio tests.
Invariance considerations lead to other test procedures.
First, we consider equality of covariance matrices and equality of covari~
ance matrices and mean vectors of several populations without specifying the
common covariance matrix or the common covariance matrix and mean
vector. Th(. multivariate analysis of variance with r..lndom factors is consid~
ered in this context. Later we treat the equality of a covariance matrix to a
given matrix and also simultaneous equality of a covariance matrix to a given
matrix and equality of a mean vector to a given vector. One other hypothesis
considered, the equality of a covariance matrix to a given matrix except for a
proportionality factor, has only a trivial corresponding univariate hypothesis.
In each case the class of tests for a class of hypotheses leads to a
confidence region. Families of simultaneous confidence intervals for covari~
ances and for ratios of covariances are given.

An Introduction to Multivariate Statbtical Analysis, Third Edltlon. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc,

411
 412 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUAUTY OF COVARJANCEMATRICES

I'" The application of the tests for elliptically contoured distributions is

-'treated in Section 10.11.

10.2. CRITERIA FOR TESTING EQUAUTY OF SEVERAL

COVARIANCE MATRICES

In this section we study several normal distributions and consider using a set
of samples, one from each population, to test the hypothesis that the
covariance matrices of these populations are equal. Let x';P, a = 1, ... , Ng,
g = 1, ... , q, be an observation from the gth populatioll N( ....(g), l:g). We wish
to test the hypothesis

(1)

Nt
(2) Ag = E (x~g) - x(g))( x~P - x(g»)" g=l, ... ,q,
a=J

First we shall obtain the likelihood ratio criterion. The likelihood function is

(3)

The space n is the parameter space in which each Ig is positive definite and
....(g) any vector. The space w is the parameter space in which I I = l:2 = ...

= l:q (positive definite) and ....(g) is any vector. The maximum likelihood
estimators of ....(g) and l:g in n are given by

( 4) g=l, ... ,q.

The maximum likelihood estimators of ....(g) in ware given by (4), fJ.~) =x(g),
since the maximizing values of ....(g) are the same regardless of l:g. The
function to be maximized with respect to l: I = ... = l: q = l:, say, is

(5)
10.2 CRITERIA FOR EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES 413

By Lemma 3.2.2, the maximizing value of I is

(6)

and the maximum of the likelihood function is

(7)

The likelihood ratio criterion for testing (1) is

(8)
ll qg""l N1pN,'
g

The critical region is

(9)

where Al(s) is defined so that (9) holds with probability E: when (1) is true.
Bartlett (1937a) has suggested modifying AI in the univariate case by
replacing sample numbers by the numbers of degrees of freedom of the A~.
Except for a numerical constant, the statistic he proposes is

(10)

where ng = N g - 1 and n = L~", I ng = N - q. The numerator is proportional

to a power of a weighted geometric mean of the sample generalized vari-
ances, and the denominator is proportional to a power of the determinant of
a weighted arithmetic mean of the sample covariance matrices.
In the scalar case (p = 1) of two samples the criterion (0) is

(11)

where srand s~ are the usual unbiased estImators of a;2 and a~ (the t\vo
population variances) and

( 12)
414 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCEMATRICF.s

Thus the critical region

(13)

is based on the F-statistic with n l and n 2 degrees of freedom, and the

inequality (13) implies a particular method of choosing FI(e) and F 2(e) for
the critical region

(14)

Brown (1939) and Scheffe (1942) have shown that (14) yields an unbiased
test.
Bartlett gave a more intuitive argument for the use of VI in place of AI'
He argues that if N I , say, is small, Al is given too much weight in AI' and
other effects may be missed. Perlman (19S0) has shown that the test based on
VI is unbiased.
If one assumes

(15)

where zr;) consists of kg components, and if one estimates the matrix Pg ,

defining

N~
( 16) A"_"' = "i...J (x(g) -
(f
a""~t; z(g))(x u - aI-"g z(g)),
cr a ,
a"'-I

one uses (10) with n g = Ng - kg.

The statistical problem (parameter space n and null hypothesis w) is
invariant with respect to changes of location within populations and a
common linear transformation

l17) g= 1, ... , q,

where C is nonsingular. Each matrix Ag is invariant under change of

location, and the modified criterion (10) is invariant:

n~= II CAge' I tng

(1S)
ICAC'11 n

Similarly, the likelihood ratio criterion (S) is invariant.

10.3 CRITERIA FOR TESTING THAT DISTRIBUTIONS ARE IDENTICAL 415

An alternative invariant test procedure [Nagao (l973a)] is based on the

criterion
q 2 q
( 19) iL ngtr(SgS-1 -I) = i Eng tr(Sg-S)S-I(Sg-S)S-I,
g=1 g=1

where Sg = (l/ng)Ag and S = (l/n)A. (See Section 7.8.)

10.3. CRITERIA FOR TESTING THAT SEVERAL NORMAL

DISTRIDUTIONS ARE IDENTICAL

In Section 8.8 we considered testing the equality of mean vectors when we

assumed the covariance matrices were the same; that is, we tested

(1 )

The test of the assumption i.l H2 was considered in Section 10.2. Now let us
consider the hypothesis that both means and covariances are the same; this is
a combination of HI and H 2. We test

(2)

As in Section 10.2, let x~g\ a = 1, ... , Ng• be an observation from N(JL(g\ Ig),
g = 1, ... , q. Then il is the unrestricted parameter space of {JL(g), I g}, g =
1, ... , q, where I g is positive definite, and w* consists of the space restricted
by (2).
The likelihood function is given by (3) of Section 10.2. The hypothesis HI
of Section 10.2 is that the parameter point faUs in w; the hypothesis H2 of
Section 8.8 is that the parameter point falls in w* given it falls in w ~ w*;
and the hypothesis H here i~; that the parameter point falls in w* given that
it is in il.
We use the following lemma:

Lemma 10.3.1. Let y be an observation vector on a random vector with

density fez, 8), where 8 is a parameter vector in a space il. Let Ha be the
hypothesis 8 E ila c il, let Hb be the hypothesis 8 E ilb' C il a, given 8 E il a,
and let Hab be the hypothesis 8 E ilb' given 8 E il. If Aa, the likelihood ratio
criterion for testing H a, Ab for H b, and Aab for Hab are uniquely defined for the
observation vector y, then

(3)
416 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

Proof. The lemma follows from the definitions:

maxOefi. f(y,6)
(4) Aa = maxOefi f( y, 6)'

A _ max Oe fi b f(y,6)
(5) b-
maxOefi. f(y,6)'

max" e fib fey, 6)

(6) Aab =
maxoefif y,6
() . •
Thus the likelihood ratio criterion for the hypothesis H is the product of
the likelihood ratio criteria for HI and H 2 ,

(7)

where
q Ng
(8) B= L L (x~P-i)(x~,g)-i)'
g= L a=l
q
=A + L Ng(i(g) -i)(i(K) -i)'.
g=1

The critical region is defined by

(9) A:::; A( e),

where A(e) is chosen so that the probability of (9) under H is e.

Let

( 10)

this is equivalent to A2 for testing H 2 , which is A of (12) of Section 8.8. We

might consider

(11)

However, Perlman (1980) has shown that the likelihood ratio test is unbiased.
lOA DISTRIBUTIONS Of THE CRITERIA 417

10.4. DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CRITERIA

10.4.1. Characterization of the Distributions

First let us consider VI given by (0) of Section 10.2. If

(1) g=2, ... ,q.

then

(2)

Theorem 10.4.1. V 12 , VI;"'" V lq defined by (1) are independent when

II= ... =Iq andng~p, g=l, ... ,q.

The theorem is a conseq lIence of the following lemma:

Lemma 10.4.1. lf A and B are independently distributed according to

WeI, m) and weI, n), respectively, n ~ p, m ~ p, and C is such thaI C(A +
B)C' = I, then A + Band CAC' are independently distributed; A + B has the
Wishart distribution with m + n degrees of freedom, and CAC' has the multivari-
ate beta distribution with nand m degrees of freedom.

Proof of Lemma. The density of D = A + Band E = CAe' is found by

replacing A and B in their jOint density by C- I EC' - I and D - C - I Ee' -I =
C-I(J-E)C'-I, respectively, and multiplying by the Jacobian, which is
modi CI-(P+ I) = IDI ~(p+l), to obtain

for D, E, and 1- E positive definite. •

418 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUAL TY OF COVARlANCEMATRICES

Proof qf Theorem. If we let Al + ... +Ag = Dg and Cg(A I + .,. +A g_ 1 )C~

= E g, where CgDgC~ = I, g = 2, ... , q, then

V = IC.; I E!:C~-II ~(1I1+ ••• +n~-')I C;I (I - Eg )C~-II !n K

18 IC-g 1 C'-g
l li(II I -t-"+lI g )

g=2, ... ,q,

and E~, ... , Eq are independent by Lemma 10.4.1.

•
We shall now find a characterization of the distribution of V lg . A statistic
V ig is of the form

IBlblCI C

( 5)
IB + Cl h + C
•

Let B, and C, be the upper left-hand square submatrices of Band C,

respcctiwly, of order i. Define b(l) and c(l) by
B,_
I
(6) B , = ( b' i= 2, ... , p.
(1)

Then (5) is (Bo = Co = I, b(1) = C(I) = 0)

(7)
IBlblCI
IB + Clb+e
C

=
n
(=1
IB(lblC,l c
IBI_llbIC,_llc
IB(_I +C,_1Ib+c
IB, + C(l b+c

p b c
bif.,-ICI/·{-1
=0I 1=

b+c
(b" I-I + C,/,,_I )
10.4 DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CRITERIA , 419

where bi/. i _I = b(( - b(()B1-_11b(l) and CI{'I-l = Cfl - C(f)Ci_11 C(I)' The second term
for i = 1 is defined as 1.
Now we want to argue that the ratios on the right-hand side of (7) are
statistically independent when Band C are independently distributed ac-
cording to we£., m) and WeI, n), respectively. It follows from Theorem 4.3.3
that for B f _ 1 fixed bU) and ba.l - I are independently distributed according to
N(l3 u), O"U.(_I B;-:..II) and O"U'I I X Z with m - (i - 1) degrees of freedom, re-
spectively. Lemma 1004.1 implies that the first term (which is a function of
b"'f-l/Cji.i-l) is independent of bU•t - 1 +CiI-f_I'
We apply the following lemma:

Lemma 10.4.2. For Bi _ 1 and Ci _ 1 positive definite

(8) b(i)B;=.ll b(f) + C(f)Ci-\ C(I) - (b(n + C(I)Y (BI _ I + Ci - 1) I(bU) + C(i»)

= (Bi-=-llb(,) - Ci_IIC«(»)'(Bi_11 + Ci_ll) I( Bt-_Ilb(f) - C;-IIC(i»)'

Proof. Use of (B- 1 + C-I)-I = [C-l(B

+ C)B-l ]-1 = B( f! + C)-Ie
shows the left-hand side of (8) is (omitting i and i - 1)

(9)
b'B-'(B- I +C-I)-I(B- I +C-I)b+c'(B-1 +C-I)(B- 1 +C- I ) IC-IC

-(b +c),B-I(B-' + C- I ) IC-I(b +c)

=b'B-'(B- 1 + C-,)-I B-'b + c'C-I(B 1+ C- I ) -IC-IC

- b'B-' (B- 1 + C- I ) -, C-'c - c'C- I ( B- 1 + C-')B-'b,

which is the right-hand side of (8). •

The denominator of the ith second term in (7) is the numerator plus (8),
The conditional distribution of Bi-II b(i) e;_'1 C(I) is normal with mean
i-I + e-
, O"il'i-I (B-
-1 a. C- I d ' 1 I ) Th .
Bi-II"'(I) - (-,'Y(l) an covarIance matrlX (-I' e covarI-
ance matrix is 0"(('(-1 times the inverse of the second matrix on the right-hand
side of (8). Thus (8) is distributed as O"IN-l X Z with i - 1 degrees of freedom,
independent of BI_I> CI- 1' bit'i-I> and Cji'i-I'
Then

(10)

is distributed as XfO- X{y, where Xi has the t3[i(m - i + l),~(n - i + 1)]

420 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

distribution, i = 1, ... ,p. Also

b(l'i-I + C1foi-l jO+C'

(11) [ i = 2, ... , p,

is distributed as Yib+C', where 1'; has the ,B[i(m + n) - i + 1,!(i - 1)] distribu-
tion. Then (5) is distributed as nr= I Xib(1 - X)Cnf=2 l';:b+c, and the factors
are mutually independent.

Theorem 10.4.2.

(12)

where the X's and Y's are independent, X ig has the J3H(n 1 + .,. + n g_1 - i + 1),
i(n g -i + 1)] distribution, and 1';g has the J3[~(nl + ... +ng) -i + 1,~(i -1)]
distribution.

Proof. The factors VI2 , ••• , V1q are independent by Theorem 10.4.1. Each
term V1g is decomposed according to (7), and the factors are independent .
•
The factors of VI can be interpreted as test criteria for subhypotheses.
The term depending on X i2 is the criterion for testing the hypothesis that
Ui~,If- I = Ui~~f- I, and the term depending on Yi2 is the criterion for testing
(I) - (2)' (I) - (2)
O'(i) - O'(i) given U{j'i- t - Uij'i-I' an
d "'""i-I.I
" "'"
""1-1,2'
Th e terms d epen.d'109
on X'g and l';:g similarly furnish criteria for testing I I = Ig given I I = ... =
Ig_I'
Now consider the likelihood ratio criterion A given by (7) of Section 10.3
for testing the hypothesis Jl.(I) = ... = Jl.(q) anc I I = ... = I q • It is equivalent
to the criLerion

(13)

IAI + '" + .~N

The two factors of (13) are independent because the first factor is indepen-
dent of Al + ... +Aq (by Lemma 10.4.1 and the proof of Theorem 10.4.1)
and of i(l), •.. , i(q).
10.4 DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CRITERIA 421

Theorem 10.4.3

(14) W= nq

g~2
{ p
n}(J(NI+"'+N~-I)(l-X )'iN~nYl(NI+
i= I
I

Ig I~
I

1=2
P I

I~

where the X's, Y's, and Z's are independent, XIII has the ,B[~(111 + '" +11/1- I -
i + 1),!(n g - i + 1)] distribution, Y{g has the ,B[!(n, + '" +n g) - i + I ,~(i - I)]
distribution, and Zi has the ,B[hn + 1 - i),~(q - 1)] distribution.

Proof The characterization of the first factor in (13) corresponds to that

of V, with the exponents of X lg and 1 - XI!! modified by replacing n R by Ng •
The second term in Up~~-J. n' and its characterization follows from Theorem
8.4.1. •

10.4.2. Moments of the Distributions

We now find the moments of VI and of W. Since 0 ::s; V, ::s; 1 and O::s; W::s; L
the moments determine the distributions uniquely. The hth moment of VI
we find from the characterization of the distribution in Theorem lOA.2:

(15)

r[!ng(1 +h) -!(i -1)]r[!(nl + ... +ng) -i+ 1]

r[!eng - i + 1)]r[1(n, + .,. +ng)(1 + h) - i~· 1]

.n r[4(nJ
1~2
r[!(nJ+"'+ng)(I+h)-i+1]r[~(n'+"'+llg-i+1)] }
+ ... +ng) - i + l1r[1(n J+ ... +ng)(l + h) - ~(i -1)]

=n{
i= J
r[Hn+1-i)]
r [ ~ (n + hn + 1 - i)]
n
g= J
r [Hn g +hn g +1-i)]}
-H
r [ n g + 1 - i) ]

rp(!n)
rp[Hn +hn)]
n
}:=,
1~[Hng +Im g)]
rpUn,,)
422 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY Of COVARIANCE MATRICES

The hth moment of W can be found from its representation in Theorem

1004.3. We have

(16)

= nq ( np r[l(n 2 1
+ ... +n g-I + 1- i) + lh(N
2 1
+ ... +Ng-I )]
s~1 I~I r[HIl 1 +"'+ll r l +l-i)]r[Hn g +1-i)]

r[i(n g + l-i+Ng h)]r[t(n l + ... +ng) -i+ 1]

r [ ~ ( n I + '" + n g) + t h (NI + .. , + Ng ) + 1 - i]

.n r [1 (n
P
2 I
+ .. , + n j: ) + lh
2
(N I + '" + Ng ) + 1 - i]
1=2 r[ h n l + .,. +ng) + 1 - i]
1'[1(111 + ... +11, + [- ill }
. r[ Hn I + .. , + ".~ + 1 - i) + ~ h ( N I + ... + Nx)]
p r [ ~ (n + 1 - i + hN)] r [H N - i) ]
)J r [ ~ (11 + 1 - i) ] r [1(N + hN - i) ]
_ fP

-I1 \g=1
n r[HNg+hNg-i)]}
r[HN/:-i)]
1'[~(N-i)]
r[t(N+hN-i)]

rp(!n) q fp[Hng+hNg)]
rpOn + thN) }] rgOn g)

We summarize in the following theorem:

Theorem 10.4.4. Let VI be the criterion defined by (10) of Section JO.2 for
testing the hypothesis that HI: I I = '" = 1'1' where A/: is n H times the sample
covariance matrix and llg + 1 is the size of the sample from the gth population; let
W be the criterion defined by (13) for testing the hypothesis H : .... 1 = .. , = .... q
and HI' where B =A + Lj?Ng(i(g) -i)(i(g) - f)'. The hth moment of VI when
HI is trne is given by (15). The hth moment oJ' W, the criterion for testing H, is
given by (16).

This theorem was first proved by Wilks (1932). See Problem 10.5 for an
alternative approach.
lOA DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CRITERIA 423

If p is even, say p = 2r, we can use the duplication formula for the gamma
function [r(a + k)r(a + 1) = J;r(2a + 1)2- 2a ]. Then

{f r ( n g + hn g + 1 - 2 j) 1 r (n + 1 -
2j) }
(17) SV1
h _
-lJ)J r q
r(ng + 1- 2j) r(n + hn + 1- 2j)

and

(18)
SW -
h _ n{[ gIJ
j"" I
q r( ng + hNg + 1 - 2j)
r (n g+ 1 - 2j)
1r ( Nr(+NhN- 2j)- 2j) } .
In principle the distributions of the factors can be integrated to obtain the
distributions of VI and W. In Section 10.6 we consider VI when p = 2, q = 2
(the case of p = 1, q = 2 being a function of an F-statistic). In other cases,
the integrals become unmanageable. To find probabilities we use the asymp-
totic expansion given in the next section. Box (1949) has given some other
approximate distributions.

10.4.3. Step-down Tests

The characterizations of the distributions of the criteria in terms of indepen-
dent factors suggests testing the hypotheses H1 and H by testing component
hypotheses sequentially. First, we consider testing H 1 : I l = I2 for q = 2.
Let

(g) _ X(g)
(I-I) ) (g) _ IJ.(ig)- I) ) I~g) =
I(?)
(I-I)
(J'(W]
(19) XCi) - (
X/g) , IJ.(I) - ( /-t~g) , I
[ ....,.(g), (g) ,
v (i) aii

i=2, ... ,p, g= 1,2.

The conditional distribution of X/g) given X/l] I) = xil~21) is

(20)
where a:(g) /1'1-1
= a/g)
II
- fI(~)'I(
(I)
0 fI(~)
I-I (I)'
It is assumed that the components of X
have been numbered in descending order of importance. At the ith step the
component hypothesis aJ?_1 = ai}~!_1 is tested at significance level ej by
means of an F-test based on sgll_1 /sm-I; SI and S2 are partitioned like I(l)
and I(2). If that hypothesis is accepted, then the hypothesis fleW = (or fill?
I(I)
i-I
- I fI (1) = I (2) - I fI (2»
(l) {-1 (f)
is tested at significance level o.I on the assumption
that I}~ I = I}~ I (a hypothesis pnviously accepted). The criterion is

SP)-I S(l) - S(2)-1 s(~»)'(S~J)--1 + S(2)-I) -I (SP)-IS(~) - S~2)-1 s(~»)

( I-I (I) I-I (I) 1-1 1-1 I-I (I) I-I (I)
(21)
(i - I)Sli'I_1
424 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARlANCEMATRICES

where (n l + n2 - 2i + 2)sii'i-1 = (n l - i + 1)S}Pi-1 + (n2 - i + IJS~r.~_I' Under

the null hypothesis (21) has the F-distribution with i - I and n l + n 2 - 2i + 2
degre("!s of freedom. If this hypothesis is accepted, the (i + l)st ~tep is taken,
The overall hypothesis II = 12 is accepted if the 2p - 1 component hy-
po:heses are accepted. (At the first step, (1t~) is vacuous) The overall
sigmficance level is
p p
(22) 1- fl (1 - ej ) fl (1 - 0,) .
i= I i=2

If any component null hypothesis is rejected, the overall hypothesis is

rejected.
If q > 2, the null hypotheses HI: II = ... = I q is broken down into a
sequence of hypotheses [l/(g - 1)KI 1 + ... + Ig-I) = Ig and tested sequen-
tially. Each such matrix hypot~esis is tested as II = 12 with S2 replaced by
Sg and SI replaced by [1/(n l + ... +ng_I)](A I + .,. +A g_ I ).
In the case of the hypothesis H, consideI first q = 2, II = 1 2, and
j.1(1) = j.1(2). One can test I[ = 1 2 , The steps for testing j.1(l) = j.1(2) consist of
t-tests for ,...,1I(l) = r-/
IP) based on the conditional distribution of X.(l)I and X(2)
I

given xU~ I) and xU~ 1)' Alternatively one can test in sequence the equality of
the conditional distributions of X,o) and xl 2) given xU~ I) and x~~~ I)'
For q > 2, the hypothesis II = ... = Iq can be tested, and then j.11 = ...
= j.1q. Alternatively, one can test [l/(g - 1)](1 1 + .. ' + Ig-I) = Ig and
[l/(g-l)](j.1(l) + ... + j.1(g-l)) = j.1(g).

10.5. ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS

OF THE CRITERIA

Again we make use of Theorem 8.5.1 to obtain asymptotic expansions of the

distributions of VI and of A. We assume that ng = kgn, where E~~l kg = 1.
The asymptotic expansion is in terms of n increasing with kl' .. , kq fixed.
(We could assume only lim n gin = kg > 0.)
The h th moment of

bon
n<r q n -pn
2I I [
q 1 k' jwn V
(1) A*1 -- V I . n g=l
q
n wng
g
'= V1 . I] (n)
g-I g
- - g-I
- I] (k g ) - I

IS

(2)
10.5 ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSIONS OF DISTRIBUTIONS OF CRITERIA 425

This is of the form of 0) of Section 8.6 with

b=p. - In
YJ - '2 • TI, = t(1- j), j= l, .... p,

(3) a=pq, k = (g -1) p + 1. ... , gp, g= I. .... q.

k=i,p+i, ... ,(q-I)p+i. i= I, .... p

Then

(4) f= -2[E~k- ETI,-'!(a-b)]

= - rq
l
t
i"" I
(1 - i) - t(
) '" I
1 - j) - (qp - p) 1
=- [-qtp(p 1) + 1p(p -1) - (q -l)p]
=±<q-l)p(p+l},

8
J
= ~(1 - p)n, j = 1, ... , p. and {3k = !O - p)ni: = 10 - p)k.~n, k = (g.- 1)p
+ 1, ... ,gp.
In order to make the sec<?nd term in the expansion vanish, we take p as

q 1 1 \ 2p~ + 3p - 1
(5) p=l- ( g~l ng - nJ6(p+l)(q-l)'

Then

p(p + l)[(P - l)(p + 2)( t \ - 12)-

g'" 1 ng n
6(q-l)(1- p)~l
(6) W2 = 48p2

Thus

(7) Pr( - 2p log Ai ~ z}

= Pr{ xl ;s; z} + w 2 [Pr{ Xl-r4 ~z} - i'r{ xl s:zl] + O( n-;;).

(8)
426 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCEMATRICES

This is the form (1) of Section 8.5 with

q
\.' =!N == ! '\' N 1·
b = p. .II 2 2 '-' g' n{ = - 'ii, j= 1, ... ,p,
g-I

(9) a=pq, k=(g-1)p+1, ... ,gp, g=l, ... ,q,

~k = -!i. k=i,p +i, ... ,{q -l)p +i, i= 1, ... ,p.
The basic number of degrees of freedom is f= !p(p + 3Xq - 1). We use (11)
of Section 8.5 with 13k (1- P)xk and 8 1 = (1 - P)Yf' To make WI = 0, we
take

q 1 1)2 p2 --t.9 P +ll

(10)
P = 1 - ( g>;:1 Ng - N 6( q - 1) ( p + 3) .

Then

( 11) W2 = p( p +2
48p
3) [ 1: [1
q
g-I
-2 -
Ng
I) (p + 1)( P + 2) -
-2
N
6(1 - p) 2(q - 1) 1
The asymptotic expansion of the distribution of - 2 P log A is
(12) Pr{ - 2p log A:::; z}

= Pr{ xl : :; z} + w 2[Pr{ X/-+-4 :::;z} - Pr{ xl:::; z}] + O(n -3).

Box (1949) considered the case of Ai in considerable detail. In addition to
this expansion he considered the use of (13) of Section 8.6. He also gave an
F-approximation.
As an example, we use one given by E. S. Pearson and Wilks (1933). The
measurements are made on tensile strength (Xl) and hardness (X 2 ) of
aluminum die castings. There are 12 observations in each of five samples.
The observed sums of squares and cross-products in the five samples are

A = ( 78.948 214.18 )
I 214.18 1247.18 '

A = (223.695 657.62)
2 657.62 2519.31 '

(13) A =( 57.448 190.63 )

) 190.63 1241.78 '

A = ( 187.618 375.91 )
4 375.91 1473.44 '

A = ( 88.456 259.18 )
5 259,18 1171.73 •
10.6 THE CASE OF TWO POPULATIONS 427

and the sum of these is

(14) I: A = ( 636.165 1697.52)

I 1697.52 7653.44

The -log Ai is 5.399. To use the asymptotic expansion we find p 152/165

= 0.9212 and W2 = 0.0022. Since w 2 is small, we can consider - 2 p log Ai as
X 2 with 12 degrees of freedom. Our obseIVed criterion, therefore, is clearly
not significant.
Table B.5 [due to Korin (1969)] gives 5% significance points for -210g Ai
for Nl = ... =- Nq for various q, small values of Ng , and p = 2(1)6.
The limiting distribution of the criterion (19) of Section 10.1 is also An xl.
asymptotic expansion of the distribution was given by Nagao (1973b) to terms
of order 1/11 involving X2-distIibutions with I, 1+2, 1+4, and 1+6
degrees of freedom.

10.6. THE CASE OF 1WO POPULATIONS

10.6.1. Invariant Tests

When q = 2, the null hypothesis HI is I I =I 2• It is invariant with respect to
transformations

( 1) x* (2) = ex(2) + v (2) ,

where C is non singular. The maximal invariant of the parameters under the
transformation of locations (C = J) is the pair of covariance matrices lI' I 2,
and the maxiwal invariant of the sufficient statistics i(1), S I' i(2), S2 is the
pair of matrices SI' S2 (or equivalently AI' A 2 ). The transformation (1)
induces the transformations Ii = CI Ie', Ii = CI 2C', Sf = CS1C', and
Sf = CS 2 C'. The roots A, ~ A2 ~ ... ~ Ap of

(2)

are invariant under these transformations since

Moreover, the roots are the only invariants because there exists a nonsingular
matrix C such that

(4)

where A is the diagonal matrix with Ai as the ith diagonal element,

i = 1, ... , p. (See Th00rem A.2.2 of the Appendix.) Similarly, the maximal
428 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

invariants of S 1 and S2 are the roots II ;?: 12 ;?: .• , ~ Ip of

(5)

Theorem 10.6.1. The maximal invariant of the parameters of N(v-U ) , "II)

and N(V-(2), 1 2) under the tramformation (1) is the set of roots AI ~ ... ~ Ap of
(2). The maximal invariant of the sufficient statistics xU\ Sp X(2\ S2 is the set of
roots II ~ ... ~ Ip of (5).

Any invariant test critcrion can bc cxprc!o)!o)cd in tcrms of thc roots

11"'" Ip' The criterion VI is ntpnlnJ:Jn2 times

( 6)

where L is the diagonal matrix with Ii as the ith diagonal element. The null
hypothesis is rejected if the smaller roots are too small or if the larger roots
are too large, or both.
The null hypothesis is that Al = ... = Ap = 1. Any useful in variant test of
the null hypothesis has a rejection region in the space of II"'" I p that
include~ the points that in some sense are far from II = ... = Ip = 1. The
power of an invariant test depends on the parameters through the roots
AI"'" Ap.
The criterion (19) of Section 10.2 is (with nS = n l SI + n2S2)

(7) ~nltr[(SI-S)S-I]2+ tn2tr[(S2-S)S-lf

= ~nl tr [C( SI - S)C'( CSC') -1]2

+ ~n 2 tr [ C ( S2 - S) C' ( CSC ') -1] 2

This r..:riterion is a measurc of how close 11"'" Ip arc to I; the hypothesis is

rejected if the measure is too large. Under the null hypothesis, (7) has the
X2-distribution with f = ~r( p + 1) degrees of freedom as n I -+ 00, n2 ---+ 00,
10.6 THE CASE OF TWO POPULA nONS 429

and n1/nz approaches a positive constant. Nagao (1973b) gives an asymptotic

expansion of this distribution 1.0 terms of order lin.
Roy (1953) suggested a test based on the largest and smallest roots, 1t and
lp' The procedure is to reject the null hypothesis if I, > kL or if If! < k p•
where kl and kp are chosen so that the probability of rejection when A I
is the desired significance level. Roy (1957) proposed determining k\ and kf!
so that the test is locally unbiased, that is, that the power functions have a
relative minimum at A = 1. Since it is hard to determine kl and kp on this
basis, other proposals have been made. The li.nit kl can be determined so
that Pr{ll > kdH 1} is one-half the significance level, or Pr{lp <kplH t } is
one~half of the significance level, or k, + kp = 2. or klkp = 1. In principle kl
and k ,} can be determined from the distribution of the roots, given in Section
13.2. Schuurmann, Waikar, and Krishnaiah (975) and Chu and Pillai (t979)
give some exact values of k, and kp for small values of p. Chu and Pillai
(1979) also make some power comparisons of several test procedures.
In the case of p = I the only invariant of the sufficient statistics is S,/Sz,
which is the usual F-statistic with n, and n z degrees of freedom. The
criterion V t is (A 1/A 2 )!1I 1[1 +A1/A z )]- ~'I; the critical region VI less than a
constant is equivalent to a two-tailed critical region for the F-statistic. The
quantity n(B - A)IA has an independent F~distribution with I and n de-
grees of freedom. (See Section 10.3.)
In the case of p = 2, the hth moment of VI is. from (15) of Section 10.4.

tS'V h = rent +hnl -1)r(1I2 +hn::. -l)r(n -1)

(8)
I rent -l)r(n z -l)r(n +hn -1)

where XI and X z are independently distributed according to Il(xln l - 1.

nz -1) and Il(xln) + nz - 2,1). respectively. Then Pr{VI :::;; v} can be found by
integration. (See Problems to.8 and 10.9.)
Anderson (19t>Sa) has shown that a confidence interval for a'l;tala'I2a
for all a with confidence coefficient e is given by (lpIU,IIIL), where
Pr{(n z -p + OL :::;;nZF1Jl.1J2-p+I}Pr{(nt -p + I)F1Jl-P+l.tI:. :::;ntU} = 1- e.

10.6.2. Components of Variance

In Section 8.8 we considered what is equivalent to the one-way analysis of
variance with fixed effects. We can write the model in the balanced case
(N1 =Nz = .. , =Nq ) as

(9)
= II.
r
+ 11g + U(g)
a' a=l .... ,M, g=l, .... q.
430 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUAUTY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

where GU(g) = 0 and GU(g)U(8)1 = :I. Vg = 11-(8) - 11-, and II- = (llq)EZ .. 1 II-(g)
O:::~, IV.~::::: 0). The null hypothesis of no effect is VI = ... Vq = O. Let

i(!:)::::: (l/M)'£~"lx~g) and i = (l/q),£Z=li(gl. The analysis of variance table

IS

Degrees of
Source Sum of Squares Freedom
q
Effect H=M E (i(g)-i)(i(g)-i)' q-1
gml

q AI
Error G= E E (x~) - i(g)Xx~g) - i(g», q(M 1)
g"'l a=l

q .\f
Total E E (x~) - i)(x~g) - i)' qM 1
g=l a=I

Invariant tests of the null hypothesis of no effect are b,.sed on the roots of
\H-mGI 0 or of ISh-ISel=O, where Sh=[1/(q O]H and S..,=
[J/q(M -1)]G. The null hypothesis is rejected if one or more of the roots is
too large. The error matrix G has the distribution W(l., q(M - 1». The
effects matrix H has the distribution W(:I, q - 1) when the null hypothesis is
true and has the noncentral Wishart distribution when the null hypothesis is
not true; ils expected value is
q
( 10) IiH = (q - 1)I + ME (11-(11) - II-)(II-(g) - 11-)'
8'=1
q •

= (q - I) l + M E Vg v;.
g=l

The MANOVA model with random effects is

(11 ) a=l, ... ,M, g=l, ... ,q,

where Vg hac:; the distribution N(O, e). Then x~g) has the distribution
N( f.1. I + 0). The null hypothesis of no effect is

(12) 0==0.

In this model G again has the distribution W(:I, q(M - 1». Since j(g) = II- +
Jljl + U(g) has the distribution N(II-, (l/M):I + e), H has the distribution
W(:£ + M@, q - n. The null hypothesis (12) is equivalent to the equality of
10.7 TESTING HYPOTHESIS OF PROPORTIONALITY; SPHERICITY TEST 431

the covariance matrices in these two Wishart distributions; that is, .I = ~ +

M@. The matrices G and H correspond to AI and A2 in Section 10.6.1.
However, here the alternative to the null hypothesis is that (~ + M9) - ~ is
positive semidefinite, rather than ~ I =1= ~2' The null hypothesis is to be
rejected if H is too large relative to G. Any of the criteria presented in
Section 10.2 can be used to test the null hypothesis here, and its distribution
under the null hypothesis is the same as given there.
The likelihood ratio criterion for testing @ = 0 must take into account the
fact that @ is positive semidefinite; that is, the maximum likelihood estima-
tors of ~ and ~ + M@ under n must be such that the estimator of 9 is
positive semidefinite. Let " > > ... >'1 'I'
be the rootg of

(13)

(Note {lj[q(M - l)]}G and (1jq)H maximize the likelihood without regard
to @ being positive definite.) Let It = Ii if II> 1, and let Ii = 1 if Ii'::;; 1.
Then the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis 9 = 0 against
the alternative @ positive semidefinite and 0 =1= 0 is

p I*!tl k
(14) kfiqMp Il i 1 = MtqMk Il----'---:--
i=l (17 + M - 1),qM 1-1 (I, + M - 1)

where k is the number of roots of (13) greater than 1. [See Anderson (1946b),
(1984a), (1989a), Morris and Olkin (1964), and Klotz and Putter (1969).]

10.7. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS THAT A COVARIANCE MATRIX IS

PROPORTIONAL TO A GIVEN MATRIX; THE SPHERICI1Y TEST

10.7.1. The Hypothesis

In many ~tatistical analyses that are considered univariate, the assumption is
made that a set of random variables are independent and have a Common
variance. In this section we consider a test of these assumptions based on
repeated sets of observations.
More precisely, we use a sample of p-component vectors x I'" ., x N from
N(IJ., ~) to test the hypothesis H: ~ = (T 2/, where (T 2 is not specified. The
hypothesis can be given an algebraic interpretation in terms of the character-
istic roots of ~, that is, the roots of

(1)
432 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCEMATRICES

The hypothesis is true if and only if all the roots of (1) are equal. t Another
way of putting it is that the arithmetic mean of roots <pp ..• , <Pp is equal to
the geometric mean, that is,

Df_I<P,I/ p = I~II/p =1
(2)
r..f""l <pi/p tr '.tIp .
The lengths squared of the principal axes of the ellipsoids of constant density
are proportional to the roots <P, (see Chapter 11)~ the hypothesis specifies
that these are equal, that is, that the ellipsoids are spheres.
The hypothesis H is equivalent to the more general form 'I' = (]'2'1'0, with
'I' 0 specified, having observation vectors J'I," . ,J'N from N( v, '1'). Let C be
a matrix such that

(3) C'I'oC' = 1,

and let j.1* = Cv, ~* = C'I'C', x: = Cya' Then xL ... , x~ are observations
from N( j.1* , ~ *), and the hypothesis is transformed into H: ~ * = (]' 21.

10.7.2. The Criterion

In the canonical form the hypothesis H is a combination of the hypothesis
HI : ~ is diagonal or the components of X are independent and H 2 : the
diagonal elements of ~ are equal given that ~ is diagonal or the variances of
the components of X are equal given that the components are independent.
Thus by Lemma 10.3.1 the likelihood ratio criterion A for H is the product of
the criterion Al for HI and Az for Hz. From Section 9.2 we see that the
criterion for HI is

(4)

where
N
(5) A E (xa-i)(xa-i)'=(a i ,)
a=1

and 'ii = aiil vaUa'1' We use the results of Section 10.2 to obtain ..\2 by
considering the ith component of xa as the ath observation from the ith
population. (p here is q in Section 1O.2~ N here is Ng there; pN here is N

t This follows from the fact that 1: - O'4W, Where ~ is a diagonal matrix with roots as diagonal
elements and 0 is an orthogonal matrix.
10.7 TESTING HYPOTHESIS OF PROPORTIONAUTY; SPHERICITY TEST 433

there.) Thus

( 6)

na-tN
= _ _--'-'11'---,-_
(trA/p)!PN'

Thus the criterion for H is

(7)

It will be observed that A resembles (2). If 11" .. , IP are the roots of

(8) Is -Ill = 0,

where S = (l/n)A, the criterion is a power of the ratio of the geometric

mean to the arithmetic mean,

(9)

Now let us go back to the hypothesis 'II = U 2 '110 , given observation

vectors YI"",YN frem N(v, 'II). In the transformed variables {x~} the
criterion is IA*I tN(tr A* /p)- ~pN, where

N
(10) A* = L (x: -i*)(x: -i*)'
a=l

N
=C L (ya-ji)(Ya-ji)'C
a=l

=CBC',

where

N
(11) B= L (Ya-ji)(ya-ji)'·
a=l
434 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

From (3) we have '1'0 = C- I (C')- I = (C'C)-I. Thus

(12) tr A* = tr CBC' = tr BC'C

The results can be summarized.

Theorem 10.7.1. Given a set of p-component observation vectors YI"'" J'N

from lY( v, '1'). the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis H: 'I' =
2
U!. 'i'll' where 'i'o is specified and u is not specified, is

( 13)

Mauchly (1940) gave this criterion and its moments under the null
hypothesis.
The maximum likelihood estimator of u 2 under the null hypothesis is
tr B'V()I/(pN). which is tr A/(pN) in canoniLal form; an unbiased estimator
is trB'I'ij'/[p(N-l)] or trA/[p(N-l)] in canonical form [Hotelling
(1951)]. Then tr B'I'U"I/U 2 has the X2-distrihution with peN -1) degrees of
freedom.

10.7.3. The Distribution and Moments of the Criterion

The distribution of the likelihood ratio critcrion under the null hypothesis
can be characterized by the facts that A = Al A2 and Al and A2 are indepen-
dent and by the characterizations of AI and A2. As was ohserved in Section
7.6. when I is diagonal the correlation coefficients {rl ) are distributed
independently of the variances {a,,/CN - l)}. Since Al depends only on {ri)
and A2 depends only on {a,J, they are independently distributed when the
nun hypothesis is true. Let W = A2/N, WI = A~/N, W2 = AyN. From Theorem
\).3.3. we see that WI is distributed as TI{'=2 XI' where X 2 " . " Xp are
independent and XI has the density f3[xl-!Cn - i + 1),~(i - 1)], where n =
N·· ,. From Theorem 1004.2 with W2 = pi' VI2/", we find that W2 is dis·
tributed as pl'nr~2y,)·'(I -~), where Y2,''''Yp are independent and 1j
has the density I3Cy11n(j - D,!n). Then W is distributed as W1W2 • where WI
and W2 are independent.
10.7 TESTING HYPOTHESIS OF PROPORTIONALITY; SPHERICITY TEST 435

The moments of W can be found from this characterization or from

Theorems 9.3.4 and 10.4.4. We have

(14)

(IS)

It follows that

( 16)

For p = 2 we have

r(n) r[t(n+l-i)+h]
(17)
h h
$ W = 4 r (n + 2h) U---::""'
2
r..-'[ (-n-+-l--"';"'l-')::-]. .: . .
i'-I

_r(n)r(n-l+2h)_ n-l
- r(n+2h)r(n-l) - n-l+2h

by use of the duplication formula for the gamma function. Thus W is

distributed as Z2, where Z has 1-he density (n - l)zn-2, and W has the
density t( n - l)w i(n - 3). The cdf is

(18) Pr{W.:5: w} =F(w) = w!(n-l).

This result can also be found from the joint distribution of 11,12 , the roots of
(8). The density for p = 3, 4, and 6 has been obtained by Consul (1967b). See
also Pillai and Nagarsenkar (1971).

10.7.4. Asymptotic Expansion of the Distribution

From (16) we see that the rth moment of wtn = Z, say, is

(19)
436 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

This is of the form of (1), Section 8.5, with

a =p, k=l, ... ,p,

(20)
b = 1, y\ = ~np, 'YJl = O.

Thus the expansion of Section 8.5 is vat:d with f = w( p + 1) - 1. To make

the second term in the expansion zero we take p so

1 _ 2p2 + P + 2
(21) - p- 6pn

Then

(p + 2){p -l){p - 2)(2 p 3 + 6p2 + 3p + 2)

(22) w2 =
288p 2n 2p2

Thus the cdf of W is found from

(23) Pr{ -2plogZ :s;z}

=Pr{-nplogW;::;z} !
= Pr{ xl ~z} + w 2 (Pr{ xl+4 ;::;z} - Pr{ xl :s;z}) + O(n- 3 ).
Factors c(n, p, e) have been tabulated in Table B.6 such that

(24) Pr { - n p log W :s; c ( n, p, e) X lp( n + 1 ) _ 1 ( e) } = e.

Nagarsenkar and Pillai (1973a) have tables for W.

10.7.5. Invariant Tests

The null hypothesis H: I = (J' 2/ is invariant with respect to transformations
X* = cQX + 11, where c is a scalar and Q is an orthogonal matrix. The
invariant of the sufficient statistic under shift of location is A, the invariants
of A under orthogonal transformations are the characteristic roots 11"'" Ip'
and the invariants of the roots under scale transformations are functions
that are homogeneous of degree 0, such as the ratios of roots, say
11112, ... ,lp_lllp' Invariant tests are based on such flnctions; the likelihood
ratio criterion is such a function.
10.7 TESTING HYPOTHESIS OF PROPORTIONALlTY; SPHERICITY TEST 437

Nagao (1973a) proposed the criterion

(25) ! n tr
2
(s - trPS I) ~~
tr S
(s _trpS I) Ltr S
= In tr
2
(LS
tr S
- 1)1 = {n[ p~ tr S2 -p]
- ( tr S) 2

= In[-P -
2 ("/1 1)2 l=l
,-"
12 -
P
~=
-
2:(=l(!,
f·
1 ~n -I):! ,
L,=I I

where 1= 2:f= l/,/p. The left-hand side of (25) is based on the loss function
L/,£, G) of Section 7.8; the right-hand side shows it is proportional to the
square of the coefficient of variation of the characteristic roots of the sample
covariance matrix S. Another criterion is I til p' Percentage points have been
given by Krishnaiah and Schuurmann (1974).

10.7.6. Confidence Region~

Given observations YI>" ., YN from N( v, 'II), we can test qr = IT:' 'V 1I for any
specified '1'0' From this family of tests we can set IIp a confidence region for
'}T. If any matrix is in the confidence region, all multiples of it are. This kind
of confidence region is of interest if all components of Ycr are measured in
the same unit, but the investigator wants a region imh:-pt.:'ndt:nt of this
common unit. The confidence region of confidence I - e consists of all
matrices 'II * satisfying

(26)

where ACe) is the e significance level for the criterion.

Consider the case of p = 2. If the common unit of measurement is
irrelevant, the investigator is interested in T = o/It /0/22 and p = o/l2/ ,; I/Illl/l~2 .
In this case

= 1 [1/Ir--22 - pHll 1/I~"21

(27) qr-l
o/n1/l22 (1 - p"2.) - p'; I/Ill 1/12"2 I/I ll

"'11(1'_ p') [ -;r.

438 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

The region in terms of T and p is

(28)

Hickman (l ~53) has given an example of such a confidence region,

10.8. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS THAT A COVARIANCE

MATRIX IS EQUAL TO A GIVEN MATRIX

10.8.1. The Criteria

If Y is distributed according to N(v, '11), we wish to test HI that'll = '11 0 >
where 'lIo is a given positive definite matrix, By the argument of the
preceding section we see that this is equivalent to testing the hypothesis
HI ; ! = I, where I is the covariance matrix of a vector X distributed
according to N(tJ., I), Given a sample XI"" > xN> the likelihood ratio crite-
rion is

( I)

where the likelihood function is

Results in Chapter 3 show that

(3)

where
(4 )
a

Sugiura and Nagao (1968) have shown that the likelihood ratio test is biased,
but the modified likelihood ratio test based on

(5)
10.8 TESTING THAT A COVARIANCE MATRIX IS EQUAL TO A GIVEN MATRIX 439

where S = (l/n)A, is unbiased. Note that

2
(6) - -log
n
Ai = tr S -loglSI - p = L/(/, S),

where L/(I, S) is the loss function for estimating 1 by S defined in (2) of

Section 7.8. In terms of the characteristic roots of S the criterion (6) is a
constant plus
P IJ p
(7) E(--logO/j-p= E(lI-log(-l);
i-I i-I i-I

for each i the minimum of (7) is at Ii = 1.

Using th~ algebra of the preceding section, we see that given YI"'" YN as
observation vectors of p components from N( 11, 'IT), the modified likelihood
ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis HI : 'IT = 'ITo' where 'ITo is sp.ecified,
is

(8)

where
N
(9) B= E (Ya - Y)(Ya - Y)'.
a" I

10.S.2. The Distribution and Moments of the Modified Likelihood

Ratio Criterion
The null hypothesis HI : l: = 1 is the intersection of the null hypothesis of
Section 10.7, H: l: = u 2/, and the null hypothesis u 2 = 1 given l: = u 2/.
The likelihood ratio criterion for Hi given by (3) is the product of (7) of
Section 10.7 and

(to)

which is the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis u 2 = 1 given
~ = u 2/. The modified criterion At is the product of IAI tn /(tr A/p)wn and

tr A
wn _ i\r A+ liP
(11) ~-
( pn ) e 2
n •
'

these two factors are independent (Lemma 10A.1). The characterization of

the distribution of the modified criterion can be obtained from Section
440 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

10.7.3, The quantity tr A has the x2-distribution with np degrees of freedom

under the null hypothesis.
Instead of obtaining the moments and characteristic function of Af [de-
fined by (5)] from the preceding characterization, we shall find them by use
of the fact that A has the distribution WeI, n). We shall calculate

etpnh
= --f"'fIAI~nhe-thtrAw(AII n)dA.
n wnh '

Since

(13)
IAI ten +n h-p-l) e-1(tr I. -IA+lr hA)
IAltnh e-!hlrAw(AII,n) = ----;------;------
2wn III tnrp(!n)

2kp'I'Tp[~n(l +h)]
= ------~------~----
11- + hli t(,· t,ddl ~I ~''f"On)
1

11- 1 + hll ~(,. +'1'1) IA I t(f! +n "-p-I ) e- tlr(l: -. +h I)A

2 t,,(,· +,"I)l~) [ 1n( 1 + h)]

2tpnh\II~nhrp[~n(l +h)]
=
11 + hII ~( .. +nh)rpOn)

the hth moment of Ar is

(14)

Then the characteristic function of -2log A* is

= (2e)-i pnl III- inl . P r[Hn+l-j)-int]

n 1/- 2itII tn-inl lJ r[ Hn + 1 - j)]
10.8 fESTING THAT A COVARIANCE MATRIX IS EQUAL TO A GIVEN MATRIX 441

When the null hypothesis is true, 'I = I, and

(16)

C e - 2 If log A,* = (2e)-'

n P nt
(1 - 2ft) ,,_'p(n
P
21l!Iln r[-11(n+1-}')-int]
j=l r[Hn+l-j)]
This characteristic function is the product of p terms such as

_ (2e)-11ll ,-~!fl :!wrlr[!(n+1-j)-int]

(17) $,(t)- n (1-2It) r[Hn+l--j)]'

Thus - 2 log A~ is distributed as the sum of p independent variates, the

characteristic function of the jth being (17), Using Stirling's approxImation
for the gamma function, we have

t(II-) )-III(

, (' 1) \ ',I" I I ,)
. tI lI}-- J'
=(1-2u) ( 1-
1(n j+l)(1-2it}

2j - 1 ) - I fII
. ( 1 - --"------
n(1 - 2it)

As n -'jI 00, $j(t) -'jI (1- 2it)- tI, which is the characteristic function of x/
(x 2 with j degrees of freedom), Thus - 2 log Ai is asymptotically distributed
as EJ.=1 xl,which is X 2 with Ej-l j = :W(p + 1) degrees of freedom. The
distnbution of Ai can be further expanded (Korin (1968), Davis (1971)] as

(19) Pr{-2plogAt~z}

= Pr{ xl ~ z} + p:~2 (Pr{ X/+4 sz} - Pr{ xl sz}) + O( N- 3 ).

where

(20) p= 1- -"'-~--'---

p{2p4 + 6 p 3 + p2 - 12p - 13)

(21)
288( P + 1)
442 TESTING HYPOTHESES Ol~ GQUAUTY OF COYARIANCEMATRICES

Nagarsenkel' and Pillar (1973b) found exact distributions and tabulated 5%

and I % significant points, as did Davis and Field (1971), for p = 2(1)10 and
n = 6(1)30(5)50,60,120. Table B.7 [due to Korin (1968)] gives some 5% and
1% significance points of -210g Af for small values of nand p = 2(1)10.

10.8.3. Invariant Tests

The null hypothesis H: I = I is invariant with respect to transformations

X* = QX + 11, where Q is an orthogonal matrix. The invariants of the suffi-
cient statistics are the characteristic roots 11' ... , I p of S, and the invariants of
the parameters are the characteristic roots of I. Invariant tests are based on
the roots of S; the modified likelihood ratio criterion is one of them. Nagao
(1973a) suggested the criterion
p
(22) ~ n tr ( S - 1/ = ~ n E (l i-I) 2
.
i= 1

Under the null hypothesis this criterion has a limiting x2-distribution with
~p( f1 + I) degrees of freedom.
Roy (1957), Section 6.4, proposed a test based on the largest and smallest
characteristic roots 11 and I p: Reject the null hypothesis if

(23) Ip < I or 11 > u,

\\'here

(24)

and e is the significance level. Clemm, Krishnaiah, and Waikar (1973) give
tables of u = 1/1. See also Schuurman and Waikar (1973).

10.8.4. Confidence Bounds for Quadratic Forms

The test procedure based on the smallest and largest characteristic roots can
be inverted to give confidence bounds on qudaratic forms in I. Suppose nS
has the distribution W( I, n). Let C be a nonsingular matrix such that
I = C' C. Then nS* = nC' - I SC- I has the distribution W(J, n). Since I; ,:5;
a'S*a/a'a<li for aU a, where I; and It are the smallest and largest
characteristic roots of S* (Sections 11.2 and A.2),

a'S*a }
(25) Pr {I::; a' a ::; u Va*" 0 = 1 - e,

where
(26) Pr{1 :::;1; ::;/r::; u} = 1- e.
10.8 TESTING THAT A COVARIANCE MATRIX IS EOUAL TO A GIVEN MATRIX 443

Let a = Cb. Then a' a = b'C'Cb = b'1b and a'S*a = b'C'S*Cb = b'Sb. Thus
(25) is

b'Sb }
(27) 1 - e = Pr { I ~ "ii"!Ji ~u Vb*" 0

b'Sb
Pr { - b'Ib < -1-
b'Sb
= u- -< -

Given an observed S, one can assert

(28) b'Sb < b'1b < b'Sb Vb

u - - I

with confidence 1 - e.
If b has 1 in the ith position and O's elsewhere, (28) is s,Ju ~ 0;, ~ s;;/I. If
b has 1 in the ith position, - 1 in the jth position, i j, and O's elsewhere, *"
then (28) is

(29)

Manipulation of tnesc inequalities yields

(30) ~
I
_ S'I + Sjj
2
(!I _!)
u -
< (T < ~ +
') - u
Si' + s)]
2
(1-I _!)
u' i *j.
We can obtain simultaneously confidence intervals on all elements of I.
From (27) we can obtain

(31) 1 - e = Pr { uI 7i'b
b'Sb b'Ib 1 b'Sb
~ b'b ~ T 7i'b Vb
}

I . a'Sa b'Ib 1 a'Sa

~ Pr { - mll1-,- ~ -b'b ~ -I max-,-
u a aa a aa

= pr{ ~ Ip ~ Ap ~ Al ~ ill}'
where 11 and I p are the large"t and smallest characteristic roots of S and Al
and Ap are the largest and smallest characteristic roots of I. Then

(32)

is a confidence interval for all characteristic roots of I with confidence at

least 1 - e. In Section 11.6 we give tighter bounds on >..(1) with exact
confidence.
444 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

10.9. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS THAT A MEAN VECTOR AND

A COVARIANCE MATRIX ARE EQUAL TO A (aVEN VECTOR
AN}) MATRIX

In Chapter 3 we pointed out that if 'I' is known, (j - Vo)'WOI(j -1'0) is

suitable for testing

(1) gIven 'I' == '1'0'

Now let us combine HI of Section 10.8 and H 2 , and test

(2)

on the basis of a sample y\ •. .. , YN from N( v, '1').

Let

(3) x=C(Y-Vo),
where

( 4)

Then x l' ...• X N constitutes a sample from N( f.L, 1), and the hypothesis is

(5) H : f.L = 0, 1=1.

The likelihood ratio criterion for H 2 : f.L = 0, given 1 = 1, is

(6) A2 = e- 2"\N-'-
xx.

The likelihood ratio criterion for H is (by Lemma 10.3.1)

(7)

The likelihood ratio test (rejecting H if A is less than a suitable constant) is

unbiased [Srivastava and Khatri (1979), Theorem 10.4.5]. The two factors Al
and A2 are independent because A\ is a function of A and A2 is a function of
i, and A and i are independent. Since

(S)
10.9 TESTING MEAN VECfOR AND COVARIANCE MATRIX 445

the hth moment of A is

under the null hypothesis. Then

(10) -210g A = -210g Al - 210g A2

has asymptotically the X 2-distribution with f = p( p + 1)/2 + p degrees of

freedom. In fact, an asymptotic expansion of the distribution [Davis (1970] of
-2p log A is

(11) Pr{ -2plog A ~z}

= p~{ xJ ~ z} + p~~2 (Pr{ X/+4 ~z} - Pr{ xl ~z}) + O( N- 3 ),

(12)
+ 9p - 11
= 1 _ 2)12
p 6N(p+3)'

_ p(2p4 + 18 p 3 + 49p2 + 36p - 13 2

(13) )'2- 288(p-3)

Nagarsenker and Pillai (1974) used the moments to derive exact distributions
and tabulated the 5% and 1% significance points for p = 20)6 and N =
4(1)20(2)40(5)100.
Kow let us return to the observations Y1"'" YN' Then

a a

= trA +Ni'i
tr( B'lTol) + N(j - VO)''lTol(j ~ vo)

and

(15)

Theorem 10.9.1. Given the p-component observation vectors Y •. ... 'Ys from
N( v, 'IT), the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis f{: v = v l\'
446 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

When the null hypothesis is trur, -2log A is asymptotically distributed as X 2

with iP( p + 1) + P degrees of freedom.

10.10. ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTS

We shall consider some Bayes solutions to the problem of testing the

hypothesis

(1)

as in Section 10.2. Under the alternative hypott esis, let

( 2) g= 1, ... ,q,

where the p x'l{ matrix Cg has density proportional to 11+ C" C~I- in!,
ng = Ng - 1, the 'g-component random vector y(g) has the conditional normal

distribution with mean 0 and covariance matrix (ljNg)[/rg - C~(Jp +

CgC~)- I Cg]-l given Cg, and (CI' y(l»), ... , (C q, y(q») are independently dis-
tributed. As we shall see, we need to choose suitable integers r l , ... , r q • Note
that the integral of 11+ Cg C~I - 111 , is finite if n g ~ p + r g' The n the n umera-
tor of the Bayes ratio is

.exp { -} l [x:!, - (l+ e,e;f'e,l" r

.( 1+ ege;)[ x;g, - (I + e,e; f'e,y"'] }
I

·11 + CgC~I- ~ng\ 1- C~{1 + CI:C~f I Cg \'

. exp{ - ~Ngy(g) '{/- C~{1 + CgC~ f 1 c~g) ]y<g)} dy<g) dC g

10.10 ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTS 447

-2l/.')'e~ Ex~) + Ngl,;)'yW]l dy(~)deg

a-I

= COnst Ii exp{ - Htr

g-l
Ag + Ngx(g)lx(g)]}IAgl- t,s.

Under the null hypothesis let

(4)

where the p x, matrix C has density proportional to II + ee' I - ~n, n =

Ei-l ng, the ,-component vecto~' y(g) has the conditional normal distribution
with mean 0 and covariance matrix (l/Ng)[I, - e'(Ip + ee,)-le]-I given e,
and y(l), .•. , y(Cl are conditionaUy independent. Note that the integral of
II + ee'l - in is finite if n 2. p + ,. The denom inator of the Bayes ratio is

'(1 + CC') [x~) (1 + CC') -I C,") 1)

.1/ + ee'l- tllgl/_ e'{1 + ee') -Ie 14
448 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCEMATRICES

The Bayes test procedure is to reject the hypothesis if

(6)

For invariance we want Ei=l 'g = ,.

The binding constraint on the choice of ' p " " 'q is 'g S; ng - p, g =
1, ... , q. It is possible in some special cases to choose '" ... , 'q so that
('1"" "q) is proportional to (N" ... , Nq) and hence yield the likelihood ratio
test or proportional to (n l , ••• , nq) and hence yield the modified likelihood
ratio test, but since 'p ... , 'q have to be integers, it may not be possible to
choose them in either such way. Next we consider an extension of this
approach that involves the choice of n urn bers t I' ... , t q' and t as well as
'l, ... ,'q' and ,.
Suppolle 2(p -0 < n g , g = 1, ... , q, and take 'g ~ p. Let tg be a real
number such that 2p - 1 < 'g + tg + P < ng + 1, and let t be a real number
such that 2p - 1 <, + t + P < n + 1. Under the alternative hypothesis let the
marginal density of Cg be proportional to ICgC~1 tlgll + CgC~I- ~'\ g;:::
1, ... , q, and under the null hypothesis let the marginal density of C be
proportional to ICC'ltll/+CC'I-V (The conditions on t" ... ,tq, and t
ensure that the purported densities have finite illtegrals; see Problem 10.18.)
Then the Bayes procedure is to reject the null hypothesis if

(7)
10.11 ELLlPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 449

For invariance we want t = 'Li-I t g' If t I' ... , t q are taken so rg + t g = kNg and
p - 1 < kNg < N g - p, g = 1, ... , q, for some k, then (7) is the likelihood ratiu
test; if rg+tg=kn g and p-l <kng<n g + I-p, g= 1, ... ,q, for some k,
then (7) is the modified test [I.e., (p -l)/min g Ng <k < 1 - p/ming N!).

Theorem 10.10.1.' If 2p < Ng + I, g = 1, ... , q, then the likelihood ratio

test and the modified likelihood ratio test of the null hypothesis (1) are admissible.

Now consider the hypothesis

(8)

The alternative hypothesis has been treated before. For the null hypothesis
let

(9)

where the p X r matrix e has the density proportional to II + ce'l 1tS II

and the r-component vector y has the conditional normal distribution with
mean 0 and covariance matrix (l/N)[I - C'(I + eC,)-IC]-1 given C. Then
the Bayes procedure is to reject the null hypothesis (8) if

(10)

If 2p < Ng + 1, g 1, .. " q, the prior distribution can be modified as before

to obtain the likelihood ratio test and modified likelihood ratio test.

Theorem 10.10.2. If 2p < Ng + 1, g = 1, ... , q, the likelihood ratio test

and modified likelihood ratio test of the null hypothesis (8) are admissible.

For more details see Kiefer and Schwartz (1965),

10.11. ElliPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

10.11.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Let x)!), a = 1, ... , Ng , be Ng observations on XCii) having the density

( 1)

where <ffKl'-v(g»)'A;I(X-V(g»)]2=J:'R;<oo, g=l, ... ,q. Note that the

same function g(.) is used for the density in all q populations. Define N. A ~.
450 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

g = 1, .... q~ and A by (1) of Section 10.2. Let Sg = (1/ng)Ag~ where ng =

N.'J. - 1, and S = (l/n)A, where n = L~""lng.
Since the likelihood ratio criterion Al is invariant under the transforma-
tion Xig ) = cx tg ) + vl.ll ), under the null hypothesis we can take 'II = ". = 'Iq
=I and VOl = .. ' = vW O. Then

(2) -21ogAl= ~[~NgIOgl:tgnl ~NIOgli)]

g"'l

= [,t I
N, log I + (i'H -/)1- N logll + (i. -I) I]
= -( ~ Ng[tr(1g0-/)-~tr(igo-/)2 +OANg- 3
)}
g I

N[tr(i. -I) - ttr (i. -I)' + Opt W') l}

q
=~ 1: Ng tr(1go ~ 1)2 - ~Ntr(iw _1)2 -I- Op(N- 3 )
g-I

By Theorem 3.6.2

(3) {N; vec(S.'J. -Ip) ~ N[O~ (K + 1)(Ipl + Kpp) + K vec Ip (vec II')'] ~
and n~Sg = Ngi gn~ g = 1~ ... ~ q, are independent. Let Ng = k gN, g = 1, ... , q,
E~", I kg = I, and let N -+ 00. In terms of this asymptotic theory the limiting
djstribution of vec(St -I), ... , vec(Sq -I) is the same as the distribution of
ji(ll, .... ylq) of Section 8.8, with 'I of Section 8.8 replaced by (K + 1)(11.2 +
Kpl') + K vec Ip(vec Ip)'.
V
When I = I, the variance of the limiting distribution of Ng (s~f) - 1) is
3 K + 2; the covariance of the limiting distribution of ...[N; (s}f) - 1) and
..jNg ~S~jli) - 1), i i= j, is the variance of s~y>, i =1= j, is K + 1~ the set {N(sW
K;

1") •.• ,VIVU/;IJ

W'{\i\ l)-'d
Ism cpcn d ent 0fh
t eset (g») .. dh (g)'<",'
Sf) ~t1=J;an test] ,t ~J,
arc mutuallv uncorrelated (as in Section 7.9.1).
10.11 ELLIPTICAlLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 451

q
(4) -210gt\=1 LNg(Yg-Y)'(Yg-Y)
g=1
q
= td L Ng(Yg - Y)(Yg -j)'
g=1

Let Q be a q X q orthogonal matrix with last column (V N I/ N ? ••• ? VN

q/ N)' .
Define

(5)

Then Wq = {iiy and

q q-l
(6) L NgYgY~ - Njj = L WgW~.
g=1 g=1

In these terms
q-l
(7) -210g AI = 1 L W~Wg + Op(N-3)~
g"'l

and WI"'" Wq_1 are asymptotically independent, Wg having the covariance

matrix of {iiy g; that is, (K + 1Xlp2 + Kpp) + K vec lp (vec Ip). Then W~Wg""
Ef.j~l(W:r)2 = Ef~I(Wj(P)2 + 2Ei</w~f»)2. The covariance matrix of
wa\ .. ., w~!) is 2( K + 1)/p + K € €, where € = (1, ... , 1)'. The characteristic
roots of this matrix are 2( K + 1) of multiplicity p - 1 and a single root of
2(K + 1) + pK. Thus Ef=l(wfl»)2 has the distribution of 2(K + l)X;-1 +
[2(K + 1) +pldxt. The distribution of 2E 1</wiP? is 2(K + l)X~p-I)/2'

Theorem 10.11.1. When sampling from (1) and the null hypothesis is true,

(8) - 2101} Al ~ (K + 1) X(~-I){P-l)(p+2)/2 + [( K + 1) + pK/2] X q2_1'

When K = 0, - 2 log AI ..!!. X(!-I)p(p+ 1)/2 is in agreement with (12) of
Section 10.5. The validity of the distributions derived in Section lOA depend
on the observations being normally distributed; Theorem 10.11.1 shows that
even the asymptotic theory depends on nonnormality.
452 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

The likelihood criteria for testing the null hypothesis (2) of Section 10.3 is
the product Al A2 or VI V2 • Lemma 1004.1 states that under normality VI and
V2 (or equivalently Al and A2) are independent. In the elliptically contoured
case we want to show that log VI and log V2 are asymptotically independent.

l,emmn 10.11.1. Let Al = niSI and A2 = n 2S 2 be defined by (2) of Section

10.2 with II = 12 =/. Then AI(A I +A 2)-1 and Al +A2 are asymptotically
independent.

Then

(11)

By application of Lemma 10.11.1 in succession to AI and Al + A 2 , to

AI +A2 and Al +A2 +A 3, etc., we establish that AIA-I,A2A-I, ... ,AqA-1
are independent of A = AI + ... +Aq. It follows that VI and V2 are asymptot-
ically independent.

Theorem 10.11.2. When I I = ... = I gand . = ... = ....

. . .11(1) II_W ,

d 2
-(K+l)X(q-I)(p-I)(p+2)/2+ [( K+1)+pK/2 ] Xq-I
2 +Xp(q-I)·
2
10.11 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 453

The hypothesis of sphericity is that I = (I'21 (or A == AI). The criteron is

AIA2' where

( 13)

The first factor is the criteron for independence of the components of X, and
the second is that the variances of the components are equal. For the first we
set q = P and Pr = 1 in Theorem 9.10, and for the second we set q = p and
p = 1. Thus

10.11.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Consider the density

(15) Ii IA gl- g [tr E (X(g) - VgE'NJ(X(g) - V.I,'E'NJ]

g=l
N
&/2
g~l
A;l

= Ii IAgl-N~/2g[tr t A;IAg+ t Nix(gl-v(gl)' A;l(X(g\-V(!:»)].

g=l g-l gml

In this density (A c' ig), g = 1, ... , q, is a sufficient set of statistics. and the
likelihood ratio criterion is (8) of Section 10.2, the same as for normality
[Anderson and Fang (1990b)1.

Theorem ]0.11.3. Let .r(X) be a vector-valued function of X =

(X(1), ••• , X(q») (p X N) such that

(17)

for every nonsingular C. Then the distribution of I(X) where X has the arbitrary
density (15) with A I == ••• = A q is the same as the distribution of I( X) where X
has the nonnal density (15).
454 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

The proof of Theorem 10.11.3 is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.5.4.

The theorem implies that the distrihution of the criterion VI of (10) of
Section 10.2 when the density of X is (15) with A I = ... = A q is the same as
for normality. Hence the distributions and their asymptotic expansions are
those discussed in Sections 10.4 and 10.5.

Corollary 10.11.1. Let I(X) be a vector-valuedfunction of X (p X N) such

that
( 18)
for every v and (17) holds. Then the distribution of I(X), where X has the
arbitrary density (15) with A I = ... = A q and v(ll = ... = v(q), is the same as
the distrihutioll of f( X), where X has the normal density (15).

If follows that the distribution of the criterion A of (7) or V of (11) of

Section 10.3 is the same for the density (15) as for X being normally
distributed.
Let X (p x N) have the dellsity
(19) I AI- N /2g[ tr A-I (X - VE'N) (X - VE'N) '}.
Then the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the null hypothesis A = AI for
some A> 0 is (7) of Section 10.7, and its distribution under the null
hypothesis is the same as for X being normally distributed.
For more detail see Anderson and Fang (1990h) and Fang and Zhang
(1990).

PROBLEMS

10.1. (Sec. 10.2) Sums of squares and cross.products of deviations from the means
of four measurements are given below (from Table 3.4). The populations are
Ins versicolor ( I), Iris serosa (2), and Iris lJirginica (3); each sample consists of 50
observations:

A -
(13.0552
4.1740
4.1740
4.X250
8.9620
4.0500
2.7332]
2.0190
1- 8.9620 4.0500 10.8200 3.5820 '
2.7332 2.0190 3.5820 1.9162

A
(60082
= 4.8616
4.8616
7.0408
0.8014
0.5732
0.5~21
0.4556'
2 0.8014 0.5732 1.4778 0.2974 '
0.5062 0.4556 0.2974 0.5442

(19.8128
4.5944
4.5944
5.0962
14.8612
3.4976
2.4056]
2.3338
A~ = 14.8612 3.4976 14.9248 2.3924 .
2.4056 2.3338 2.3924 3.6962
PROBLEMS 455

(a) Test the hypothesis II = I2 at the 5% significance level.

(b) Test the hypothesis II = I2 = I3 at the 5% significance level.

10.2. (Sec. 10.2)

(a) Let y(g), g = 1, ... , q, be a set of random vectors each wi th p components.

Suppose

4'y(g) = 0,

Let C be an orthogonal matrix of order q such that each element of the

last row is

Define
q
Z(g) = "c
J..., gil
ylh)
' g= l, ... ,q.

Show that

g=I, ... ,q-l,

if and only if

(b) Let x~g), 0: 1, ... , N, be a random sample from N(p,(g),I g ), g= l, ... ,q.
Use the result from (a) to construct a test of the hypothesis

H:I 1 = ..• =I q ,

based un a test of independence of Z(q) and the set Z(I), .•. , Z(q -I). Find
the exact distribution of the criterion for the case p = 2.

10.3. (Sec. 10.2) Unbiasedness of the modified likelihood ratio test of Show u? uf.
,
that (14) is unbiased. [Hint: Let
, G = n 1 F In2, r = lul, and c 1 u?
< c2 be the
sOlutions to Gi"' (1 + G r '[(fI, 1<112) = k, the critical value for the modified
likelihood ratio criterion. Then

Pr{Acceptancel u~ lui = r} = constt2rinIG~nl-1 (1 + rG) -i(n,+n2) dG

CI

=const[C2H~nl-l(1 +H) i(n,+n2) dH.

re,

Show that the derivative of the above with respect to r is positive for 0 <' r < 1,
o for r 1, and negative for r> 1.1
456 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCEMATRICES

10.4. (Sec. 10.2) Prove that the limiting distribution of (19) is where f= xl,
W(p + lXq - O. [Hint: Let I = /. Show that the limiting distribution of
(19) is the limiting distribution of

w here S (g) ~ ($»)

~ ( s,) , - ~( Sr)($)
S -- ( sri') an d t he Vng - ;:, ) . .
uij , l 5,j, are . d
In epen d ent III
.
the limiting distribution, the limiting distribution of F; (s~f) - 1) is MO,2),
and the limiting distribution of F;sff), i <j, is N(O,O.]

10.5. (Sec. 10.4) Prove (15) by integration of Wishart densities. [Hint: Gvt =
Gni~IIAgl hlAI- ~II can be written as the integral of a constant times
IAI- illn~= Iw(A/i1 I, nil + hn ll ). Integration over Li-t Ag = A gives a constant
times w(AI I, n).]

10.6. (Sec. lOA) Prove (16) hy integration of Wishart and normal dem,ities. [Hint:
L1_tNiXllll-x)(Xlg)-X)' is distributed as LJ:Il yfyf . Use the hint of Prob-
lem 10.5.]

10.7. (Sec. 10.6) Let x\"l, ... , x~) be observations from N(p.(~), I~), ~,= 1,2, and
let A.= Dx~~) _i(·l)(x~,") -x(~))'.

(a) Prove that the likelihood ratio test for H: I I = I2 is equivalent to

rejecting H if

(b) Let dr, di, ... , d~ be the roots of I I I - AI21 = 0, and let

d1 0 0
0 d2 0
D=

0 0 dp

2
Show that T is distributed as IBt!'IBzl/IB I +B 2 1 , where BI is dis-
tributed according to W(D 2 , N - 1) and B2 is distributed according to
2
W(J, N - O. Show that T is distributed as IDC1DI'1 C:!,I /IDC1D + C2 1 ,
whcre C, i:-; di:-;trihuted according to W(J, N - 1).

10.8. (Sec. 10.6) For p = 2 show

Pr{VI 5, v} = la(nl - 1, n2 - 1)

+ 8- 1(nl - 1, n2 - 1)0"'1-+ 1I2-2)/n fl> x- 2nz / n (1- XI) -11,1" dx 1

a
PROBLEMS 457

where a<b are the two roots of xrl(1-xl)lIl=v:s;;nl'll~;/n'l. [Him: This

follows from integrating the density defined by (8).]

10.9. (Sec. 10.6) For p = 2 and n 1 = n ~ = m, say, show

where a = ~[1 VI - 4v 1/m 1.

10.10. (Sec. 10.7) Find the distribution of W for p =2 under the null hypolhesis (a)
directly from the distribution of A and (b) from the diSiribUlion of the
characteristic roots (Chapter 13).

10.11. (Sec. 10.7) Let XI"'" x N be a sample from N(p.,:I). What il'i the likelihood
ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis p. == kp.o, :t = k:!:I!I' where P.1I and :Ill
are specified and k is unspecified?

10.12. (Sec. 10.7) Let x\I), ...

,x~! be a sample from N(p.(I),:II). and X\!I." .. X(~~
be a sample from Mp.0), :t 2 )' What is the likelihood ratio criterion fN 1l!~Hing
the hypothesis that :I 1= k 21 2 , where k i!; unspecified? What is the likelihood
ratio criterion for testing the hypothesis that p.(1)=kp.{.:!) and:I 1 k.:!:I~.
where k is unspecified?

10.13. (Sec. 10.7) Let xa of p components, a = 1. .. " N, be observations frol1l

N(p., :I). We define the following hypotheses:

In each case k 2 is unspecified, but :I(I is specified, Find lht.' likelihood mlit)
criterion A2 fOr testing H l' Give Ihc asymptolic distribminn of :? Illg A~
under H 2 • Obtain the exact distribution of a suitahle monOlonic funttion of A~
under H 2 •

10.14. (Sec. 10.7) Find the likelihood ratio criterion A for testing H of Prohlem
10.13 (given X"".,X N ). What is the asymptolic dislributioll t.1t" -::!iog.\ 1I11lkr
H?

10.15. (Sec. 10.7) Show that A = Al A:" where A is defined in Prohlem IlU'+. A~ i::;
defined in Problem 10.13, and AI is the likelihood ratio criterion for HI in
Problem 10.13. Are Al and A1 independently distributed under H? Prove your
answer.
458 TESTING HYPOTHESES OF EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

10.16. (Sec. 10.7) Verify that tr B 'Ito" I has the x1Hdil,tribution with p( N - 1) de-
grees of freedom.

10.17. lSec. 10.7,1) Admissibility of sphericity leSl. Prov~ that the likelihood ratio test
of sphericity is admissible. [Him: Under the null hypothesis let I = U/(1 +
1]~)]I. and let 11 have the density (1 + 11~)- !"p(11 2 ) r t.J

10.18. (Sec. 10.10.1) Show that fer r;:;.p

if 2p -1 < 1+ r + p < n + 1. [Him: IAI /11 +AI .s 1 if A is positive semidefi w

nile. Also, IE~-",x,xil has the distribution of Xr1X?_! ... X?-p+1 if XI""'X,
are independently distributed according to MO, n.1

10.19. (Sec. 10.10.1) Show

where C if; P X r. [Hint: ce' has the di~tribution WCA-l,r) if C has a density
proportional to e - ~tr C.4('.J

10.20. (Sec. 10.10.1) Using Problem 10.18, complete the proof of Theorem 10.10.1.
CHAPTER 11

Principal Components

11.1. INTRODUCTION

Principal components are linear combinations of random or statistical vari-

ables which have special properties in terms of variances. For example, the
first principal component is the normalized linear combination (the sum of
squares of the coefficients being one) with maximum variance. In effect,
transforming the original vl~ctor variable to the vector of principal compo-
nents amounts to a rotation of coordinate axes to a new coordinate system
that has inherent statistical proper~ies. This choosing of a coordinate system
is to be contrasted with the many problems treated previously where the
coordinate system is irrelevant.
The principal components turn out to be the characteristic vectors of ~he
covariance matrix. Thus the study of principal components can be conjidered
as putting into statistical terms the usual developments of characteristic roots
and vectors (for positive semidefinite matrices).
From the point of view of statistical theory, the set of principal compo-
nents yields a convenient set of coordinates, and the accompanying variances
of the components characterize their statistical properties. In statistical
practice, the method of principal components is used to find the linear
combinations with large variance. In many exploratory studies the number of
variables under consideration is too large to handle. Since it is the deviations
in these studies that are of interest, a way of reducing the number of
variables to be treated is to discard the linear combinations which have small
variances and study only those with large variances. For example, a physical
anthropologist may make dozens of measurements of lengths and breadths of

An Introduction to Multiuariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-3609\-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Son:";, Inc.

459
460 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

each of a number of individuals, such measurements as ear length, ear

breadth, facial length, facial breadth. and so forth. He may be interested in
describing and analyzing how individuals differ in these kinds of physiological
characteristics. Eventually he will want to explain these differences. but first
he wants to know what measurements or combinations of measurements
show considerable variation; that is, which should have further study. The
principal components give a new set of linearly combined measurements. It
may be that most of the variation from individual to individual resides
in three linear combinations; then the anthropologist can direct his study to
these three quantities; the other linear combinations vary so little from one
person to the next that study of them will tell little of individual variation.
Hotelling (1933), who developed many of these ideas, gave a rather
thorough discussion.
In Section 11.2 we define principal components in the population to have
the properties described above; they define all orthogonal transformation to
a diagonal covariance matrix. The maximum likelihood estimators have
similar properties in the sample (Section 11.3). A brief discussion of compu-
tation is given in Section 11.4, and a numerical example is carried out in
Section 11.5. Asymptotic distributions of the coefficients of the sample
principal components and the sample variances are derived and applied to
obtain large-sample tests and confidence intervah fOi' individual parameters
(Section 11.6); exact confidence bounds are found for the characteristic roots
of a covariance matrix. In Section 11.7 we consider other tests of hypotheses
about these roots.

11.2. DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

IN THE POPULATION

Suppose the random vector X of p components has the covariance matrix 'I.
Since we shall be interested only in variances and covariances in this chapler,
we shall assume that the mean vector is O. Moreover, in developing the ideas
and algebra here, the actual distribution of X is irrelevant except for the
covariance matrix; however, if X is normally distributed, more meaning can
be given to the principal components.
In the following treatment we shall not u~.e the usual theory of characteris-
tic roots and vectors; as a matter of fact, that theory will be derived implicitly.
The treatment will include the cases where 'I is singular (i.e., positive
semidefinite) and where 'I has multiple roots.
Let 11 be a p-component column vector such that P'1l = 1. The variance of
11' X is
(1)
11.2 DEANITION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS IN THE POPULATION 461

To determine the normalized linear combination (3' X with m<..ximum vari-

ance, we must find a vector (3 satisfying (3'(3 = 1 which maximizes (1). Let

(2) cP = (3' I (3 - A( (3' (3 - 1) = ~ {3, (T'J {3J - A( L (3,:! - 1),

1,J r

where A is a Lagrange multiplier. The vectOr of partial derivatives (ilc/>/ iI{3r)

is

(3) BcP = 2I(3 - 2A(3

B(3

~by Theorem AA.3 of the Appendix). Since (3'I (3 and (3'(3 have deI'ivatives
everywhere in a region containing (3'(3 = 1, a vectOr (3 maximizing (3' I (3
must satisfy the expression (3) set equal to 0; that is

( 4) (I - A/)(3 = O.

In order to get a solution of (4) with (3'(3 = 1 we must have I - AI singular;

in other words, A must satisfy

(5) II-·All=O.

The function II - All is a polynomial in A of degree p. Therefore (5) has p

roots; let these be Al ~ A2 ~ ... ~ Ap. [(3' complex conjugate in (6) proves A
real.] If we multiply (4) on the left by (3', we obtain

(6) (3'I(3 = A(3'(3 = A.

This shows that if (3 satisfies (4) (and (3'(3 = 0, then the variance of (3' X
[given by (1)] is A. Thus for the maximum variance we should use in (4) the
largest root AI' Let (3(1) be a normalized solution of (I - AI1)(3 = O. Then
UI = (3(1)1 X is a normalized linear combination with maximum variance. [If
I - All is of rank p - 1, then there is only one solution to (I - AI /)(3 = 0
and (3'(3 = 1.]
Now let us find a normalized combination (3' X that has maximum vari-
ance of all linear combinations uncorrelated with U I • Lack of correlation
means

(7)

since ~(3(!) = AI (3(I). Thus (3 X is orthogonal to U in hoth (he :-tati:-tical :;ense

(of lack of correlation) and the geometric sense (of the inner product of the
vectors (3 and (3m being zero). (That is, A\(3'(3(1) = 0 only if (3'(3(1) = 0 when
'*
AI 0, and Al 0 if I '* '*
0; the case of I = 0 is trivial and is nOI treated.)
462 PRINCIPALCOMPONENTS

We now want to maximize

( 8)

where A and "I are Lagrange multiplers. The vector of partial derivatives is

(9) BcP2
BI3 = 2In _ 2An - 2" In(l)
P PIP,

and we set this equal to O. From (9) we obtain by multiplying on the left by
13(1)'

°
by (7). Therefore, "I = and 13 must satisfy (4), and therefore A must satisfy
(5). Let A(2) be the maximum of AI"'" Ap such that there is a vector 13
~atisfying (l: - A(2)])13 = 0, 13' 13 = 1, and (7); call this vector 13(2) and the
corresponding linear combination U2 = 13(2) X. (It will be shown eventually
I

that \2) = A2· We define \ll = AI')

This procedure is continued; at the (r + l)st step, we want to find a vector
13 such that 13' X has maximum variance of all normalized linear combina-
tions which are uncorrelated with U(7"" Un that is, such that

i=l,oo.,r.

We want to maximize
r
(12) cPr + I = WI 13 - A{13'13 -1) - 2 ~ "II3'II3(I),
i= I

where A and "1"'" "r are Lagrange multipliers. The vector of partial
derivatives is

(13)

and we set this equal to O. Multiplying (13) on the left by 13(j)·, we obtain

(14)

If \J)*'o, this gives -2"JA(J)=Oand "J=O.1f A(J)=O,then II3(J)=A(j)I3(J)

= 0 and the jth term in the sum in (13) vanishes Thus 13 must satisfy (4), and
therefore A must satisfy (5),
11.2 DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS IN THE POPULATION 463

Let \ r + I) be the maximum of Ap ... , Ap such that there is a vector ~

satisfying (1- A(r+I)J)~ = 0, ~'~' = 1, and (11); call this vector ~(r+l), and
the corresponding linear combination Ur + 1 = ~ (r + l), X. If A(r + I) = 0 and
AU) = 0, j -+ r + 1, then ~(j) 'I ~(r + I) = 0 does not imply ~(j) '~(r + I) = O. How-
ever, ~(r + I) can be replaced by a linear combination of ~(r + I) and the ~U)'s
with A(J)'s being 0, so that the new ~(r + I) is orthogonal to all ~{j\ j = 1, ... , r.
This procedure is carried on until at the (m + l)st stage one cannot find a
vector ~ satisfying ~'~ = 1, (4), and (11). Either m = p or m <p since
~(l), ••. , ~(m) must be linearly independent.
We shall now show that the inequality m < p leads to a contradiction. If
m <p t here eXlst . p -m vectors, say em+I, ... ,e ' suc h tat h nU)' p - 0
e,-,
p
e;ej = 011' (This follows from Lemma A,4.2 in the Appendix.) Let
(em +1"'" ep ) = E. Now we shall show that there exists a (p - m)-component
vector e and a number 0 such that Ee = LCA is a solution to (4) with A = O.
Consider a root of IE'IE - OIl = 0 and a corresponding vector e satisfying
E'IEe = Oe. The vector lEe is orthogonal to ~(l\ ... , ~(m) (since ~(I)'IEe
= A(I·)~(I)'LCjeJ = A(I)Lcj~(I)' ej = 0) and therefore is a vector in the space
spanned by em+I, ... ,ep and can be written as Eg [where g is a (p -m)-
component vector]. Multiplying lEe = Eg on the left by E', we obtain
E'IEe = E' Eg = g. Thus g = Oe, and we have I(Ee) = O(Ee). Then (Ec)' X
i'; uncorrelated with ~<i)' X, j = 1, .. " m, and thus leads to a new ~(m + I).
Since this contradicts the assumption that m < p, we must have m = p.
Let P = (~(l) ... ~(p)) and

o o
o
(15) A=
o o
The equations I ~(r) = A(r)~(r) can be written in matrix form as

(16) Ip= pA,

and the equations ~(r)'~(r)= 1 and ~(r)'~(s)=O, r-+s, can be written as

(17) p'P=I.
From (16) and (17) we obtain

(18) P'IP=A.
464 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

From the fact that

( 19) 11- All = 113'1 '11- All '1 PI

= 113'113 - Ap'pi = IA - All
= 0(\1)- A)
we see that the roots of (19) are the diagonal clements of A; that IS,

\1) = AI> A(2) = A2, .. " \p) = Ap.

We have proved the following theorem:

Theorem 11.2.1. Let the p-component random vector X have ,eX = 0 and
,eXX' = 1. Then there exists an orthogonal linear transformation

(20) u=p'X
such that the covariance matrix of U is ,e UU' = 'l and

o
o
(21) A=

where Al 2. A2 2. ... 2. Ap 2. 0 are the roots of (5). The rth column of 13, ~('\
satisfies (I - A, J)~(r) = O. The rth component of U, U, = ~(,), X, has maximum
variance of all normalized linear combinations unc01Telated with VI" .. , V, -I'

The vector U is defined as the vector of principal components of X. It will

be observed that we have proved Theorem A.2.1 of Appendix A for B
positive semidefinite, and indeed, the proof holds for any symmetric B. It
might be noted that once the transformation to VI"'" Vp has been made,
it is obvious that VI is the normalized linear combination with maximum
variance, for if V* = LC . U,., where LC} = 1 (V* also being a normalized
linear cOlT'bination of the X's), then Var(V*) = LC,2A, = Al + Lf~2 c:(A, - AI)
(since c~ = 1 - Lfcl), which is clearly maximum for c} = 0, i = 2, ... , p.
Similarly, V 2 is the normalized linear combination uncorrelated with VI
which has maximum variance (V* = LCJJ,. being uncorrelated with VI imply-
ing C 1 = 0); in turn the maximal properties of V 3 '" ., Vp are verified.
Some other consequences can be derived.

Corollary 11.2.1. Suppose A,+ I = ... = A,+m = l' (i.e., v is a root of

multiplicity in); then I - vI is of rank p - m. Furthermore 13* = (~(r+ I)
~(r+m) is uniquely determined except for multiplication on the right by an
orthogonal matrix.
11.2 DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS IN THE POPULATION 465

Proof. From the derivatiolI of the theorem we have (I v[)I3(1) = 0,

i = r + 1, ... , r + m; that is, l3{r+ 1) •••• ,b{r +111) are m linearly independent
solutions of (I vI)13 == O. To show that there cannot be another linearly
independent solution, take Ef", I X, 13(1),. where the Xl are scalars. If it is it
solution, we have v Ex,l3\i) = l(Ex, 13(1) = Ex, II3(i) = Ex, A, 13(1). Since I'.\", =
Ai);" we must have x t =- 0 unless i = r + 1, ... , r + m. Thus the rank is p - m.
If 13* is one set of solutions to (I - vJ)13 = O. then any other set of
solutions are linear combinations of the others, that is, are 13* A for A
nonsingular. However, the orthogonality conditions 13*'13* [applied to the
linear combinations give [-= (13* A)'(I3* A) = A'13* '13* A = A' A, and thus A
must be orthogonal. •

Theorem 11.2.2. An orthogonal transformation V = CX of a random vector

X leaves invariant the generalized variance and the sum of the variances of the
components.

Proof. Let GX = 0 and GXX' = I. Then GV= 0 and cCW' = CIC'. The
generalized variance of V is

(22) ICICrl = ICI·III·IC'I = III'ICC'I = III.

which is the generalized variance of X. The sum of the variances of the
components of V is

Corollary 11.2.2. The generalized variance of lhe vector of principal compo-

nents is the generalized variance of the original vector, and the sum of the
variances of the principal components is the sum of the variances of the original
variates.

Another approach to the above theory can be based on the surfaces of

constant density of the normal distribution with mean vector 0 and covari-
ance matl'ix I (nonsingular). The density is

(24)

and surfaces of constant density are ellipsoids

(25)

A principal axis of this ellipsoid is defined as the line from - y to y, where y

is a point on the ellipsoid where the squared distance x'x has i:1 stationary
466 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

point- Using the method of Lagrange multipliers, we determine the stationary

points by considering

(26) I/I=x'x- Ax'I-l x ,

where A is a Lagrange multiplier. We differen~iate 1/1 with respect to the

components of x, and the derivatives set equal to 0 are

(27)

or

(28)

Multiplication by I gives

(29) Ix= AX.

This equation is the same as (4) and the same algebra can be developed.
Thus the vectors ~(l\ ... , ~(p) give the principal axis of the ellipsoid. The
transformation u = 13' X is a rotation of the coordinate axes so that the new
axes are in the direction of the principal axes of the ellipsoid. In the new
coordinates the ellipsoid is

(30)

Thu~ the length of the ith principal axis is2J A, C .

A third approach to the same results is in terms of planes of closest fit
[Pearson (1901)]. Consider a plane through the origin, a' x = 0, where a' a =
1. The thstance of a point x from this plane is 0.' x. Let uS find the
coefficients of a plane such that the expected distance squared of a random
point X from the plane is a minimum, where cS'X=O and cS'XX' =I. Thus
we wish to minimize £'(0.' X)2 = £'0.' XX' 0. = a'Ia, subject to the restric-
tion 0.' (X = 1. Comparison with the first approach immediately shows that the
solution is 0. = ~((I).
Analysis into principal components is most suitable when all the compo-
nents of X are measured in the same units. If they are not measured in the
same units, ~he rationale of maximizing ~'I~ relative to W~ is question-
able; in fact, the analysis will depend on the various units of measurement.
Suppose ~ is a diagonal matrix, and let Y = ~ X. For example, one compo-
nent of X may be measured in inchcs ·and the corrcsponding component of Y
may be measured in feet; another component of X may be in pounds and the
11.3 MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATORS 467

corresponding one of Y in ounces, The covariance matrix of Y is $ YY' =

$I1XX'11 = .:1111 = '1', say. Then analysis of Y into principal components
involves maximizing $('Y'Y? = 'Y'W'Y relative to 'Y''Y and leads to the
equation 0 = ('I' - vI)'Y = (I1II1- vI)'Y, where v must satisfy 1'1' - vII =
O. Multiplication on the left by 11- 1 gives

(31)

Let 11'Y = a; that is, 'Y 'Y = 'Y' 11 X = a' X. Then (31) results from maximizing
$(a' X)2 = a I I a relative to a' 11-2 a. This last quadratic form is a weighted
sum of squares, the weights being the diagonal elements of 11-2.
It might be noted that if 11-2 is taken to be the matrix

(Til 0 0
0 (T22 0
(32) 11-2 =

0 0 (Tpp

then 'I' is the matrix of correlations.

11.3. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATORS OF THE PRINCIPAL

COMPONENTS AND THEIR VARIANCES

A primary problem of statistical inference in principal component analysis is

to estimate the vectors 13(1), .• " I3(P) and the scalars AI"'" Ap. We apply the
algebra of the preceding section to an estimate of the covariance matrix.

Theorem 11.3.1. Let XI'"'' X N be N (> p) observations from N(t-t, I),

where I is a matrix with p different characteristic roots. Then a set of maximum
likelihood estimators of AI"'" Ap and 13(1), ••. , l3(p) defined in Theorem 11.2.1
consists of the roots kl > ". > kp of

( 1) II -kIl =0

and a set of ccm-esponding vectors b(I),.,., b(p) satisfying

(2)

(3)

where I is the maximum likelihood estimate of I.

468 PRINC)PALCOMPONENTS

Proof. When the roots of II - AI! = 0 are different, each vector Il(i) is
uniquely defined except that 1l~/) can be replaced by -Il(i). If we require that
the first nonzero component of Il(i) be positive, then Il(l) is uniquely defined,
and lL, A, P is a single-valued function of lL, I. By Corollary 3.2.1, the set of
maximum likelihood estimates of lL, A, P is the same function of p" i. This
function is defined by (1), (2), and (3) with the corresponding restriction that
the first nonzero component of b(i) must be positive. [It can be shown that if
*
III 0, the probability is 1 that the roots of (1) are different, because the
conditions on i for the roots to have multiplicities higher than 1 determine a
region in the space of i of dimensionality less than W(p + 0; see Okamoto
(1973).] From (1S) of Section 11.2 we see that

(4)

and by the same algebra

(5)

Replacing b(l) by -b(i) clearly does not Change I:kjb(l)b(i),. Since the
likelihood function depends only on i (see Section 3.2), the maximum of the
likelihood function is attained by taking any set of solutions of (2) and (3) .
•
It is possible to assume explicitly arbitrary multiplicities of roots of I. If
these multiplicities are not all unity, the maximum likelihood estimates are
not defined as in Theorem 11.3.1. [See Anderson (1963a).] As an example
suppose that we aSsume that the equation II - All = 0 has one root of
mUltiplicity p. Let this root be AI' Then by Corollary 11.2.1, ~ - All is of
rank 0; that is, I - All = 0 or I = All. If X is distributed according to
N(lL, I) = NllL, AlI), the components of X are independently distributed
with variance AI' Thus the maximum likelihood esdmator of At is

(6)

and i = All, and P can be any orthogonal matrix. It might be pointed out
that in Section 10.7 we considered a test of the hypothesis that I = All (with
Al unspecified), that is, the hypothesis is that I has one characteristic root of
multiplicity p.
In most applications of principal component analysis it can be assumed
that the roots of I are different. It might also be pointed out that in some
uses of this method the algebra is applied to the matrix of correlation
11.4 MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF THE PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS 469

coefficients rather than to the covariance matrix. In general this leads to

different roots and vectorS.

11.4. COMPUTATION OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD

ESTIMATES OF THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

There are several ways of computing the characteristic roots and characteris-
tic vectors (principal components) of a matrix ~ or i. We shall indicate
some of them.
One method for small p involves expanding the determinantal equation

(1) 0= II - All
2nd solving the resulting pth-degree equation in A (e.g., by Newton's method
or the secant method) for the roots Al > A2 > ... > Ap. Then I - A,I is of
rank p - 1, and a solution of (I - AiI)~(I) = 0 can be obtained by taking f3/')
as the cofactor of the element in the first (or any other fixed) column and jth
row of I - AJ.
The second method iterates using the equation for a characteristic root
and the corresponding characteristic vector

(2) Ix= Ax,

where we have written the equation for the population. Let X(ll) be any vector
flOt orthogonal to the first characteristic vector, and define

(3) i = 0, 1.2, ....

It can be shown (Problem 11.12) that

(4) .lim y(I) = ± ....,

all)
1-+ 00

The rate of convergence depends on the ratio A2/ Al ; the closer this ratio is
to 1, the slower the convergence.
To find the second root and vector define

(5)
Then

(6)
470 PRINCIPAL CO MPONENTS

if i ¢ 1. and

(7)

Thus A2 is the largest root of I2 and ~(2) is the corresponding vector. The
iteration process is now applied to 12. to find A2 and ~(2). Defining I3 = I2
- A:!~(~l~(2.)', we can find A3 and ~(3), and so forth.

There are several ways in which the labor of the iteration procedure may
be reduced. One is to raise I to a power before proceeding with the
iteration. Thus one can use 12, defining

(8) i = 0,1,2, ....

This procedure will give twice as rapid convergence as the use of (3). Using
I ~ = I 2.I:! will lead to convergence four times as rapid, and so on. It should
be noted that since II is symmetric, the re are only p( p + 1)/2 elements to
be found.
Efficient computation, however, uses other methods. One method is the
QR or QL algorithm. Let Io = I. Define recursively the orthogonal Q/ and
lower triangular L, by I, = Q,L, and I i + 1 = LiQi (= Q~I/Q/), i = 1,2, ....
(The Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization is a way of finding Q/ and Lj; the QR
method replaces a lower triangular matrix L by an upper trhmgular matrix
R.) If the characte ristic roots of I a re distinct, lim i ... ooI /+ 1 = A* , w he re A*
is the diagonal matrix with the roots usually ordered in ascending order. The
characteristic vectors are the columns of lim, _ cc Q: Q: -1 .,. Q'1 (which is com·
puted recursively).
A more efficient algorithm (for the symmetric I) uses a sequence of
Householder transformations to carry l: to tridiagonal form. A Householder
matrb: i,.; H = I - 2a a' where a' a = 1. Such a matrix is orthogonal and
symmetric. A Householder transformation of the symmetric matrix I is
H l: H. It is symmetric and has the same characteristic roots as I; its
characteristic vectOrS are H times those of I.
A tridiagonal matrix is one with all entries 0 except on the main diagonal,
the first superdiagonal, and the first subdiagonal. A sequence of p - 2
Householder transformations carries the symmetric I to tridiagonal fOlm.
(The first one inserts O's into the last p - 2 entries of the first column and
row of HIH, etc. See Problem 11.13.)
11.S AN EXAMPLE 471

The QL method is applied to the tridiagonal form. At the ith step let the
tridiagonal matrix be TJi); let ~.(I) be a block-diagonal matrix (Givens matrix)

I 0 0 0
0 cos OJ' - sin Of 0
(9) p.(i) = ,
)
0 sin Of cos OJ 0
0 0 0 I

where cos OJ is the jth and j + 1st diagonal element; and let ~.(i) = p~~}~.~\,
j = 1, ... ,p - 1. Here OJ' is chosen so that the element in position j, j + 1 in ~.
is O. Then pO) = pfl)p~l) ... P~~l is orthogonal and P(i)TJI) = R(i) is lower
triangular. Then TJi+l) =R(i)P(i), (=P(i)TJI)P(i)') is symmetric and tridiago-
nal. It converges to A* (if the roots are all different). For more details see
Chapters 11/2 and 11/3 of Wilkinson and Reinsch (1971), Chapt~r 5 of
Wilkinson (1965), and Chapters ), 7, and 8 of Golub and Van Loan (1989).
A sequence of one-sided Householder transformation (H I) can carry I to
R (upper triangular), thus effecting the QR decomposition.

11.5. AN EXAMPLE

In Table 3.4 we presented three samples of observations on varieties of iris

[Fisher (1936)]; as an example of principal component analysis we use one of
those samples, namely Iris versicolor. There are 50 observations (N = 50,
n = N - 1 = 49). Each observation consists of four measurements on a plant:
Xl is sepal length, X 2 is sepal width, X3 is petal length, and x 4 is petal width.
The observed sums of squares and croSS products of deviations from means
are

13.0552 4.1740 8.9620

50 2.7332]
4.1740 4.8250 4.0500 2.0190
a~l (X,. - x)( x" - x)
_ - I
(1) A= = 8.9620
( 4.0500 10.8200 3.5820 '
. 2.7332 2.0190 3.5820 1.9162

and an estimate of I is

S = ...LA =
0.266433
0.085184
0.085184
0.098469
0.182899
0.082653
0.055780
0.041204
1
(2)
49
( 0.182899 0.082653 0.220816 0.073102 .
0.055780 0.041204 0.073102 0.039106
472 PRINCIPALCOMPONENTS

We use the iterative procedure to find the first principal component, by

computing in .tum z(i) = Sz<J-l). As an initial approximation, we use Z(O)I =
(1,0, 1,0). It is not necessary to nonnalize the vector at each iteration; but to
compare successive vectors, we compute zF) /z}) 1) = r,(), each of which is an
approximation to 11' the largest root of S. After seven iterations, rp) agree to
within two units in the fifth decimal place (fifth significant figure). This
vector is normalized, and S is applied to the normalized vector. The ratios,
r/8), agree to within two units in the sixth place; the value of 11 is (nearly
accurate to the sixth place) 11 = 0.487875. The normalized eighth iterated
vector is our estimate of 1J(1), namely,

0.6867244
0.3053463
(3)
0.6236628 .
0.2149837

This vector agrees with the normalized seventh iterate to about one unit in
the sixth place. It should be pointed out that 11 and b(l) have to be calculated
more accurately than 12 and b(2), and so forth. The trace of S is 0.624824,
which is the sum of the roots. Thus 11 is more than three times the sum of
the other rootS.
We next compute

(4) S2=S-1 b(1)b(l),

1

0.0363559 -0.0171179 -0.0260502 -0.0162472

-0.0171179 0.0529813 -0.0102546 0.0091777
- [ -0.0260502 -0.0102546 0.0310544 0.0076890 '
-0.0162472 0.0091777 0.0076890 0.0165574

and iterate z() = S2Z(;-n, using zeOlI = (0,1,0,0). (In the actual computation
S2 was multiplied by 10 and the first row and column were multiplied by -1.)
In this case the iteration does not proceed as rapidly; as will be seen, the
ratio of 12 to 13 is approximately 1.32. On the last iteration, the ratios agree
to within four units in the fifth significant figure. We obtain 12 = 0.072 3828
and
-0.669033
0.567484
(5)
0.343309
0.335307

The third principal component is found from S3 = S2 -12b(2;b(2)', and the

fourth from S4 = S3 -13 b (3)b(3)/.
11.6 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 473

The results may be summarized as follow};:

0.6867 -0.6690 -0.2651 0.1023

-0.7296
(7) B= 0.3053 0.5675 -0.2289
0.6237 0.3433 0.6272 -0.3160
0.2150 0.3353 0.0637 0.9150

The sum of the four roots is E;.. III = 0.6249, compared with the trace of the
sample covariance matrix, tr S ::;: 0.624 824. The first accounts for 78% of the
total variance in the four measurements; the last accounts for a little more
than 1%. In fact, the variance of 0.7x 1 + O.3x~ + 0.6x,3 + 0.2.t~ (an approxi-
mation to the first principal component) is 0.478, which is almost 77o/r. of the
total variance. If one is interested in studying the variations in condition~ that
lead to variations of (XI' x 2 ' X 3 • x 4 ), one can look for variations in conditions
that lead to variations of 0.7x , + 0.3X2 + 0.6'\",1 + 0.2x~. It is not very impor-
tant if the other variations in (Xl' X2' X:;, ..\'~) are neglected in exploratory
investigations.

11.6. STATISTICAL INFERENCE

11.6.1. Asymptotic Distributions

In Section 13.3 we shall derive the exact distribution of the sample character-
istic roots and vectors when the population covariance matrix is 1 or
proportional to I, that is, in the case of all population roots equal. "nle exact
distribution of roots and vectors when the population roots arc not 'all l'qltal
involves a multiply infinite series of zonal polynomials; thal development is
beyond the !icope of thi~ hook. [See Mllirhl'ad (l9tQ).] We derive the
asymptotic dil;tribution of the 'root.; and vectors when the population 1'oots
are all different (Theorem 13.5.1) and al50 when one root is multiple
(lheorem 13.5.2). Since it can usually be assumed that the population rootS
are different unless there iii information to the contrary, we .}ml11marize here
Theorem 13.5.1.
As earlier, let the characteristic roots of ~ be AI > ... >'\p and the
corresponding characteristic vectors be WI!, ... , (3(P), normalized so Wtl'(3l'l
=] and satisfying (31r 2:. 0, i = 1, .. , , p. Let the roots and vectors of S be
11 > ... > lp and b(l), ••• , b(P) normalized so b(Il'b(1) = 1 and satisfying b ll ? 0,
i = 1, ... , p. Let d. = In (II - A/) and g(i) = j;(b(l) - (3(1). i 1..... p. Then
in the limiting normal distribution the sets dl, ... ,dp and gUl, ... ,gl(Jl are
independent and d l " ' " d p are mutually independent. The element d, has
474 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

the limiting distribution N(O,2A;>. The covariances of g(1), ••• , g{P) in the
limiting distribution are

(I)

(2)

See Theorem 13.5.1.

In making inferences about a single ordered root, one treats Ii as approxi-
mately normal with mean A, and variance 2 A7/n. Since Ii is a consistent
estimate of A" the limiting distribution of

,1, - A,
(3) vn--
fil,

is N(O.1). A two~tailed test of the hypothesis A, = A? has the (asymptotic)

aCCl!ptallce region

(4)
rn 1, - A~ :::=;;z(e),
-z(e)::::;;V2: 0
A,
where the value of the NCO, 1) distribution beyond z(e) is 1e. The interval
(4) can be inverted to give a confidence interval for A, with confidence 1 - e:

(5) Ii < A, < =1,=,=--_

1 + V2/n z( e) - I - 1 - \f2/n z( e) .

Note that the confidence coefficient should be taken large enough so

,j2/llz(e) < 1. Alternatively, one can use the fact that the limiting distribu-
tion of rnOog I, -log A,) is NCO, 2) by Theorem 4.2.3.
Inference about components of a vector l3{i) can be based on treating b(l)
as being approximately normal with mean 13(1) and (singular) covariance
matrix lin times (1).

11.6.2. Confidence Region for a Characteristic Vector

We use the asymptotic distribution of the sample characteristic vectorS to
obtain a large-sample confidence region for the ith characteristic vector of I
[Anderson (1963a)]. The covariance matrix (1) can be written

( 6)
11.6 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 475

where 11 I is the p X P diagonal matrix with a as the ith diagonal element and
J A;Aj j(A 1 - Aj) as the jth diagonal element, j -+ i; 11~ is the (p - 1) X (p 1)
diagonal matrix obtained from 11, by deleting the ith row and column; and
Pi is the p X (p 1) matrix formed by deleting the lth column from 13. Then
1
h(l) = 111- 13i '{ii (b(i) - p(l» has a limiting normal distribution with mean 0

and covariance matrix

(7)

end

(8)

has a limiting X2~distribution with p - 1 degrees of freedom, The matrix of

the quad rade form in {ii (b(i) - P(I» is

because I3A- II3' =l:-I, 1313' =1, and I3AI3' =l:. Then (8) is

(10) n(b(i)-p{i)Y[A i l:- 1 -2/+(1jA i )l:](b(I)- p(i»)

=nb(')'[AiI- 1 - 21 + (1jAi )l:]b{l)

because p(I)1 is a characteristic vector of l: with root Ai' and of l: -1 with

root 1j AI' On the left·hand side of (10) we can replace I and Ai by the
consistent estimators S and It to obtain

(11) n(b{i) - p(/»)'[/,S-l - 21 + (ljli)S](b{i) - pO»)

= n[ltpU)IS-1PU) + (lj1i)P(L)'SpU) - 2],
which has a limiting X2~distribution with p - 1 degrees of freedom.
A confidence region for the lth characteristic vector of l: with confidence
1 e consists of the intersection of pU)lp(i) = 1 and the set of pO) such that
the right. hand side of (11) is less than X;-l(e), where Pr{ X;-I > X;-l(e)} = e.
Note that the matrix of the quadratic form (9) is positive semidefinite.
476 PRINCI PAL COMPONENTS

This approach also provides a test of the null hypothesis that the ith
characteristic vector is a specified 13~) (13~)'13~) = 1). The hypothesis is
rejected if the right-hand side of (11) with 13(1) replaced by 131:) exceeds
X;- I(e).
Mallows (961) suggested a test of whether some characteristic vector of
'I is 130' Let Po be p X (p - 1) matrix such that 130130 = O. if the null
hypothesis is true, WoX and P;,X are independent (because Po is.l nonsingu-
lar transform of the set of other characteristic vectors). The test is based on
the multiple correlation between 13~)X and p;,X. In principle, the test
procedure can be inverted to obtain a confidence region. The usefulness of
these procedures is limited by the fact that the hypothesized vector is not
attached to a characteristic root; the interpretation depends on the root (e.g.,
largest versus smallest).
Tyler (981), C1983b) has generalized the confidence regicm (] 1) to includ~
the vectors in a linear subspace. He has also ~tudied casing the restrictions of
a normally distributed parent population.

11.6.3. Exact Confidence Limits on the Characteristic Roots

We now consider a confidence interval for the entire set of characteristic
roots of 'I, namely, Al 2. •• ' 2. AI' [Anderson (I965a)]. We use the facts that
13(i) ''II3(I) = A, 13(1)'13(1) = 1, i = 1, p, and 13(1) ''II3(P) = 0 = 13(l)'I3(p). Then
13{\)' X and l3(p) , X are uncorrelated and have variances Al and Ap, respec-
tively. Hence nl3(I), S 13(1) / Al and n l3(p) ,SI3(p) / Ap are independently dis-
tributed as X2 with n degrees of freedom. Let 1 and u be two numbers such
that

( 12)

Then

(13)

b'Sb b'Sb}
~ Pr { min - - s; Ap ' Al S; max -1-
b'b=1 u b'b"" I
11.6 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 477

Theorem 11.6.1. A confidence interval for the characteristic roots of 'I

with confidence at least 1 - 8 is

(14)

where I and u satisfy (12).

A tighter inequality can lead to a better lower bound. The matrix H =

np'Sp has characteristic roots nil .... , nil' because P is orthogonal. We use
the following lemma.

Lemma 11.6.1. For any positive definite matrix H

(15) i=I, .... p,

where H- I = (h ij ) and ch/H) and chl(H) are the minimum and maximum
characteristic roots of H, respectively.

Proof. From Theorem A.2.4 in the Appendix we have ch,,(H):::;; hI! $.

ChICH) and

(16) 1= 1. .. ., p.

Since ch/H) l/ch\(H- 1 ) and chl(H) = l/ch p (H- 1 ), the lemma follows.
•
The argument for Theorem 5.2.2 shows that 1/(A p h PP ) is distributed a3
x 2 with n - p + 1 degrees of freedom, and Theorem 4.3.3 shows that h PP is
independent of h n . Let I' and u' be two numbers such that

(17) 1- e Pr{nl ' :::;; x}}Pr{ Xn2_p+l $. nul}.

Then

(18) 1
478 PRINCIPALCOMPONENTS

Theorem 11.6.2. A confidence interval for the characteristic roots of I

with confidence at [east 1 - e is

[ [
(19) ....l!.-<..\<\<...l
u' - I\p - 1\1 - [' ,

w[woe [' and u' satisfy (17).

Anderson (1965a,1965b) showed that the above confidence bounds are

optimal within the class of bl)unds

(20)

where f and g are homogeneous of degree 1 and are monotonically nonde-

creasing in each argument for fixed values of the others. If (20) holds with
probability at least 1 - e, then a pair of numbers u' and l' can be found to
satisfy (17) and

(21 )

The homogeneity condition means that the confidence bounds are multiplied
by c~ if the observed vectors are multiplied by c (which is a kind of scale
invariance). The monotonicity conditions imply that an increase in the size of
S results in an increase in the limits for I (which is a kind of consistency).
The confidence bounds given in (31) of Section 10.8 for the roots of I
based on the distribution of the roots of S when I = I are greater.

11.7. TESTlNG HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTlC

ROOTS OF A COVARIANCE MATRIX

11.7.1. Testing a Hypothesis about the Sum of the Smallest

Characteristic Roots
An investigator may raise the question whether the. last p - m principal
components may be ignored, that is, whether the first In principal compo-
nents furnish a good approximation to X. He may want to do this if the sum
of the variances of the last principal components is less than some specified
amount, say y. Consider the null hypothesis

(1 )
11.7 CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS OF A COVARIANCE MATRIX 479

where,), is specified, against the alternative that the sum is less than ')'. If the
characteristic roots of I are different, it follows from Theorem 13.5.1 that

(2)

has a limiting normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 2Ef=m + 1 A1- The
variance can be consistently estimated by 2E;", m + 1 I,? Then a rejection region
with (large-sample) significance level e is

(3)

where z(2 e) is the upper 3ignificance point of the standard normal distribu-
tion for significance level e. The (large-sample) probability of rejection is e if
equality holds in (1) and is less than e if inequality holds.
The investigator may alternatively want an upper confidence interval for
E;=m + 1 AI with at least approximate confidence level 1 - e. It is
p P J2E{'=III+ II:
(4) i"'~IAI::;;i=E-I/,+ rn z(2e).

If the right-hand side is sufficiently small (in particular less than ')' j, the
investigator has confidence that the sum of the variances of the smallest
p - m principal components is so small they can be neglected. Anderson
(1963a) gave this analysis also in the case that Am+ I = ... = Ap.

11.7.2. Testing a Hypothesis about the Sum of the Smallest

Characteristic Roots Relative t9 the Sum of All the Roots
The inve~tigator may want to ignore the last p - m principal components if
their Sum is small relative to the sum of all the roots (which is the trace of the
covariance matrix). Consider the null hypothesis
A + '" +A
(5) H : f( A) = 11/ + I I' ~ 0
A1 + ... + Ap ,

where 0 is specified, against the alternative that f(A) < O. We use the fact
that
Bf(A} Am+1 + ... +Ap
i = 1, ... ,m,
aA; (AI + ... + Ap) 2 '

(6)
Bf(A} A1 + ... +Am
aA I
= i=m+1, ... ,p.
(A1 + ... + Ap) 2 '
480 PI'.INCIP AL CO MPONENI'S

Then the asymptotic variance of f(l) is

when equality holds in (5), by Theorem 4.2.3. The null hypothesis H is

rejected if ,fil[f(l) - {j] is less than the appropriate significance point of the
standard normal distribution times the square root of (7) with A's replaced by
l's and tr I by tr S. Alternatively one can construct a large-sample confidence
region for fO"'). A confidence region of approximate confidence 1 - e is
[z=z(2e)]

(8)

If the right-hand side is sufficiently small, the investigator may be willing to

let the first principal components represent the entire vector of measure·
ments.

11.7.3. Testing Equality of the Smallest Roots

Suppose the observed X is given by V + U + j-L, where V and U are unobserv-
able random vectors with means 0 and j-L is an unobservable vector of
constants. If S UU' = (T 2 I, then U can be interpreted as composed of errors
of measurement: uncorrelated components with equal variances. (It is
assumed that all components of X are in the same units.) Then V can be
interpreted as made up of the systematic parts and is supposed to lie in an
m-dimensional space. Then SW' = ~ is positive semidefinite of rank m.
The observable covariance matrix I = ~ + (T2 I has a characteristic root of
(T 2 with multiplicity p - m (Problem 11.4).

In this subsection we conside r testing the null hypothesis that Am + 1 = ...

= Ap- That is equivalent to the null hypothesi,> that I = ~ + (T 2I, where ~ is
positive semidefinite of rank m. In Section 10.7, we saw that when m = 0, the
likelihood ratio criterion was the "iPNth power of the ratio of the geometric
mean to the arithmetic mean of the sample rootS. The analogous criterion
here is the iNth power of

(9)
nf=m+l/,
,,-111 ( p-m )p-m .
(r.r ,'/ ~ I 1/)
11.7 CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS OF A COVARIANCE MATRIX 481

It is also the likelihood ratio criterion, but we shall not derive it. [See
Anderson (1963a).] Let [;;Ui-Am+1)=d" i=m+l, ... ,p. The logarithm
of (9) multiplied by -n is asymptotically equivalent under the null hypothesis
to
p
2:i==m+lI,
(10) -n log n
t=m+ 1
I, + n( p - m) lng---=-m
p
p 2: P (A ", + 1 +n-~d),
-- _ n ~
L.J
1og (\I\m + 1 - ) + n ( P - m ) 1og
+ n - +d I
I ==m + I
_m
i==m+l p

=n{- ~ log(l+ d
,
l)+(p-m)log(l+
d
2:;,""I1I+l , .!.l}
I =m + 1 Am + 1 n' (p - m) Am + In:

~n{ -J+l k:> -2A~':ln + .. J

1 PIP
L d; - 2]
=
2Am+1
2
[;=m+l p
_m ( L+ d, ) + 0l'( 1) -
l=m 1

It is shown in Section 13.5.2 that the limiting distribution of d m + 1 ' ••• , d p is

the same as the distribution of the roots of a symmetric matrix U22 = (U ,_/),
i, j = m + 1, ... , p, whose functionally independent elements are independent
and normal with mean 0; all off-diagonal element u ,)' i <j, has variance
A~+l> and a diagonal element Uji has variance 2A~+1. See Theorem 13.5.2.
Then (10) has the limiting distribution of

(11) 2At+~(trUl2- p~m(trU22)2)

= 2A!
m+ I
[tr U22 U22 - P ~ m (tr U22 )2]
-'82 PRINCIPALCOMPONENTS

Thus L,<)lI~{/A;".1 is asymptotically X~ with t(p -mXp -m -1) degrees

of freedom: ~[Lf:'", .lll;, - 0:::/:.", +I u,Y I( p - m)]j A~+ I is asymptotically X2
with p - m - 1 degrees of freedom. Then (IO) has a limiting X 2-distribution
with ~(p - nz + 2X P - m - 1) degrees of freedom. The hypothesis is rejected
if the left-hand side of (10) is greater than the upper-tailed significance point
of th(' ,\ 2-distribution. If the hypothesis is not rejected, the investigator may
consider the last p - m principal components to be composed entirely of
error.
When the units of measurement are not all the same, the three hypotheses
considered in Section 11.7 have questionable meaning. Corresponding
hypotheses for the correlation matrix also have doubtful interpretation.
Moreover, the last criterion does not have (usually) a x 2-distribution. More
discussion is given by Anderson (l963a).
The criterion (9) corresponds to the sphericity criterion of Section 10.;,
and the number of degrees of freedom of the corresponding X 2-distribution
is ~(p - mXp -111 + 1) - 1.

11.8. ELLiPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

11.8.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Let Xl" .. ' Xi\ be N observations on a random ve~tor X with density

(1)

where 'II is a positive definite matrix, R 2 =(x-1I)''II-I(X-1I), :tnd

cfR <x. Define K"'p(tR~/[(c8'R~)1(p+2)]-1. Then @X=lI=j.L :md
4

e( (X -- v XX - v)' = ( cF R 2I p ) 'II = I.
The maximum likelihood e~timators of the principal components of I are
the ~haractcri~tic roots and vectors of i = U:'R2Ip)A given by (20) of
Section 3.6. Alternative estimators are the characteristic roots and vectors of
S, the unbia5ed estimator of I. The asymptotic normal distributions of these
e~timators are derived in Section 13.7 (Theorem 13.7.0. Let I = I3AI3' and
S = BLB', whl:rc A and L arc diagonal and 13 and B are orthogonal. Let
D = IN (L - A) and G = IN (B - 13). Then the limiting distribution of D
and G is normal with G and D independent.
The variance of d, is (2 + 3K)A~, and the covariance of d j and d) (i j) is *"
KA, A" The covariance of g, is

(2)
PROBLEMS 483

The covariance of gi and gj is

(3)

For inference about a single ordered root A/ the limiting standard normal
distribution of IN ([i - Ai) /( /2(2 + 3 K) 1/) can be used.
For inference about a single vector the right-hand side of (11) in Section
11.6.2 can be used with S replaced by (1 + K)S and S-I by S 1/(1 + K).
It is shown in Section 13.7.1 that the limiting distribution of the logarithm
of the likelihood ratio criterion for testing the equality of the q = p - m
smallest roots is the distribution of (1 + IdXq2(Q 1)/2-1'

11.8.2. Elliptically Contoured Matrix Distributions

Suppose the density of X = (XI"'" x N ) is

I"" -N/2g(tr(X- e'Nv)'\lrl(X- e'Nv)l

= I \{II - N /2g (tr A \{I I + N ( x - v )' \{I- I (.i: - v)],

where A = (X - e'Ni)(X - e'Nx)' = nS and n = N 1. Thus X and A are a

sufficient set of statistics.
Now consider A = YY' having the dem;ity g(tr A). Let A = BLB'. where L
is diagonal with diagonal elements II > ... > I p and B is orthogonal with
Pil ~ O. Then Land B are independent; the roots II •... , Ip have the density
(18) of Section 13.7, and the matrix B has the conditional Haar invariant
distribu tion.

PROBLEMS

11.1. (Sec. 11.2) Prove that the characteristic vectors of (~ ~) are

(Vii)
1/1i and
( 1/1i 1
-1/1i'

correspOnding to roots 1 + fI and 1 - p.

11.2. (Sec. 11.2) Verify tha t the proof of Theorem 11.2.1 yields a proof of Theorem
A.2.1 of the Appendix for any real symmetric matrix.
484 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

11.3. (Sec. 11.2) Let z = y +x, where $y $x 0, $yy' = «fl., $xx' = (J'21, Iyx'
= O. The p components of y can be called systematic parts, and the compo-
nents of x errors.

(a) Find the linear combination 'Y' z of unit variance that has minimum error
variance (i.e., 'Y' x has minimum variance).
(b) Suppose <Pff + (J' 2 = 1, 1= 1, ... , p. Find the linear function 'Y' Z of unit
variance that maximizes the sum of squares of the correlations between II
and 'Y'z, i = 1,. .. , p.
(c) Relate these results to principal components.

11.4. (Sec. 11.2) Let l: = 4> + (J' 21, where 4> is positive semidefinite of rank m.
Prove that each characteristic vector of 4> is a vector of l: and each root of l:
is a root of 4> plus (J' 2.

u.s. (Sec. 11.2) Let the characteristic roots of ~ be AI ~ A2;;:: ... ~ Ap ~ O.

(a) What is the form of l: if AI = A2 Ap > 01 What is the shape of an

ellipsoid of constant density?
(b) What is the form of l: if AI > A2 = ... = Ap > 01 What is tre shape of an
ellipsoid of constant density?
(c) What is the form of l: if Al = ••. = Ap_1 > Ap > O? What is the shape of
the ellipsoid of constant density?

11.6. (Sec. 11.2) Intraclass correlation. Let

where E = (1, ... , 1)'. Show that for p > 0, the largest characteristic root is
(J' 2[1 + (p -l)p] and the corresponding characteristic vector is E. Show that if

E' x = 0, then x is a characteristic vector corresponding to the root (J' 2(1 - p).
Show that the root (J' 2(1 - p) has multiplicity p - 1.

11.7. (Sec. 11.3) In the example of Section 9.6, consider the three pressing opera-
tions (X2' X4' xs)' Find the first principal component of this estimated covari-
ance matrix. [Hint: Start with the vector (1,1,1) and iterate.)

11.8. (Sec. 11.3) Prove directly the sample analog of Theorem 11.2.1, where LX,.. =
0, LXax~=A.

U.9. (Sec. 11.3) Let II and Ip be the largest and smallest characteristic roots of S,
respectively. PrOve $11 ~ AI and $Ip::;; Ap'

11.10. (Sec. 11.3) Let UI = ~(lll X be the first population principal component with
variance r(ul ) = A., and let VI =h(l)lX be the first sample principal compo-
nent with (sample) variance II (based on S). Let S* be the covariance matrix
of a second (independent) sample. Show G h(l), S* h O ) :s;; AI'
PROBLEMS 485

11.11. (Sec. 1 L3) Suppose that O"ij> 0 for every i, j [I = (0"1;)]' Show that (a) the
coefficients of the first principal component are all of the same sign. and
(b) the coefficients of ea( h other principal component cannot be all of the
same sign.

11.12. (Sec. 11.4) Prove (4) when AI > A2 •

(a) Show I' = pA'p'.

(b) Show

where t/ = O}=os; and s; = II ';x;/\XU\'

(c) Show

. (1 )' =E
11m
'-ox
TA
1\1
11 •

where Ell has 1 in the upper left-hand position and O's elsewhere.
(d) Show lim, JtiAD2 = I I(P(l It XliII f!.
-0

(e) Conclude the proof.

11.13. (Sec. 1 I .4) Let

where H = Ip _I - 2 a a' and a has p - 1 components. Show that a can be

chosen so that in

HU(I) has all 0 components except the first.

lJ..14. (Sec. 11.6) Show that

log ',- fl z( e) < log Ai < log/, + fl z(e)

is a confidence interval for log Ai with approximate confidence 1 - e.

11.15. (Sec. 11.6) Prove that lI' < II if I' = 1 and p> 2.

11.16. (Sec. 11.6) Prove that u < u* if 1 = 1* and p> 2. where rand u" are the 1
and u of Section 10.8.4.
486 PRINCIP AL COMPONENTS

U.l7. The lengths. widths. and heights (in millimeters) of 24 male painted turtles
[Jolicoeur and Mosimann (1960)] are given below. Find the (sample) principd
components and their variances.

Case Case
No. Length Width Height No. Length Width Height
1 93 74 37 13 116 90 43
2 94 78 35 14 117 90 41
3 % 80 35 15 117 91 41
4 101 84 39 16 119 93 41
5 102 85 38 17 120 89 40
6 103 81 37 18 120 93 44
7 [04 83 39 19 121 95 42
8 106 83 39 20 125 93 45
9 107 82 38 21 127 96 45
[0 112 89 40 22 128 95 46
11 113 88 40 23 131 95 46
12 114 86 40 24 135 106 47
CHAPTER 12

Canonical Correlations
and Canonical Variables

12.1. INTRODUCTION

In this section we consider two sets of variates with a joint distribution, and
we analyze the correlations between the variables of one set and those of the
other set. We find a neW coordinate system in the space of each set of
variates in such a way that the new coordinates display unambiguously the
system of correlation. More precisely, we find linear combinations of vari-
ables in the sets that have maximum correlation; these linear combinations
are the first coordinates in the new systems. Then a second linear combina-
tion in each set is sought such that the correlation between these is the
maximum of correlations between such linear combinations as are uncorre-
lated with the first linear combinations. The procedure is continued until the
two new coordinate systems are completely specified.
The statistical methOd outlined is of particular usefulness in exploratory
studies. The investigator may have two large sets of variates and may want
to study the interrelations. H the two sets are very large, he may want
to consider only a few linear combinations of each set. Then he will want to
study those l.near combinations most highly correlated. For example, one set
of variables may be measurements of physical characteristics, such as various
lengths and breadths of skulls; the other variables may be measurements of
mental characteristics, such as scores on intelligence tests. H the investigator
is interested in relating these, he may find that the interrelation is almost

An Introduction to MulJivarliJte Statistical Analysis. Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

[SBN 0·471·36091·0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

487
488 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

completely described by the correlation between the first few canonical

variates.
The basic theory was developed by Hotelling (1935), (1936).
In Section 12.2 the canonical correlations and variates in the population
are defined; they imply a linear transformation to canonical form. Maximum
likelihood estimators are sample analogs. Tests of independence and of the
rank of a correlation matrix are developed on the basis of asymptotic theory
in Section 12.4.
Another formulation of canonical correlations and variates is made in the
case of one set being random and the other set consisting of nonstochastic
variables; the expected values of the random variables are linear combina-
tions of the nonstochastic variables (Section 12.6). This is the model of
Section 8.2. One set of canonical variables consists of linear combinations of
the random variables and the other set consists of the nonstochastic vari-
ables; the effect of the rcgrcssion of a member of the first sct on a nlcmbcr of
the second is maximized. Linear functional relationships are studied in this
framework.
Simultaneous equations models are studied in Section 12.7. Estimation of
a ~ingle equation in this model is formally identical to estimation of a single
linear functional relationship. The limited-information maximum likelihood
estimator and the two-stage least squares estimator are developed.

12.2. CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES

IN THE POPULATION

Suppose the random vector X of P components has the covaria.lce matrix ~

(which is assumed to be positive definite). Since we are only interested in
variances and covariances in this chapter, we shall assume $ X = 0 when
treating the popUlation. In developing the concepts and algebra we do not
need to assume that X is normally distributed, though this latter assumption
will be made to develop sampling theory.
We partition X into two subvectors of PI and P2 components, respec-
tively,

( 1) X=
X(I)
( X(2)
1
•

For convenience we shall assume PIS [.2' The covariance matrix is parti-
tioned similarly into P I and P2 rows and columns,

(2)
12.2 CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES IN THE POPULATION 489

In the previous chapter we developed a rotation of coordinate axes to a new

system in which the variance properties were clearly eXhibited. Here we shall
develop a transformation of the first PI coordinate axes and a transformation
of the last P2 coordinate axes to a new (PI + pz)-system that will exhibit
clearly the intercorrelations between X(l) and X (2) •
Consider an arbitrary linear combination, U = a' X(I), of the components
of X(ll, and an arbitrary linear function, V = 'Y' X(2l, of the components of
x (2) • We first ask for the linear functions that have maximum correlation.
Since the correlation of a multiple of U and a multiple of V is the same as
the correlation of U and V, we can make an arbitrary normalization of a and
'Y. We therefore require a and 'Y to be such that U and V have unit
variance, that is,

(J)

( 4)

We note that ffU = ,sa' XII) = a' ff XII) = 0 and similarly ff V = O. Then the
correlation between U and V is

(5)

Thus the algebraic problem is to find a and 'Y to maximize (5) subject to (3)
and (4).
Let

where A and J.-L are Lagrange multipliers. We differentiate '" with respect to
the elements of a and 'Y. The vectors of derivatives set equal to zero are

(7)

(8)

Multiplication of (7) on the left by a' and (8) On the left by 'Y' gives

(9) ,~. \'~ - 0

a "'12'Y - I\a --II a - ,

(10)

Since Of'I II a = 1 and 'Y 'I 22 '), = 1, this shows that A = J.-L = a 'I I~ 'Y. Thus (7)
490 CA"'10 NICAL CO RRELAnONS AND CANONICAL VARIABJ~ES

and (8) can be written as

(11) - '\'£110' + II2Y = 0,

(12) I 21 a - AI 22 y = O.
since I')::! = I 21 . In one matrix equation this is

(13) (
In order that there be a nontrivial solution [which is necessary for a solution
satisfying (3) and (4)], the matrix on the left must be singular; that is,

(14)

The determinant on the left is a polynomial of degree p. To demonstrate

this, consider a Laplace expansion by minors of the first PI columns. One
term is I AI HI ·1 - AIzzl = (- A)PI +P2 II III·' I 2z l. The other terms in the
expansion are of lower degree in A because one or more rows of each minor

'I
in the first PI columns does not contain A. Since I is positive definite.
III ., 122\ :;. 0 (Corollary A.1.3 of the Appendix). This shows that (14) is a
polynomial equation of degree P and has P roots, say AI ~ A2 ~ ... ~ Ap. [a'
and 1" complex conjugate in (9) and (10) prove A real.]
From (9) we see that A = a'I l2 y is the correlation between U = a'X(I)
and V = 1" Xl Z) when a and l' satisfy (13) for some vulue of A. Since we
want the maximum correlation, we take A = AI' Let a solution to (13) for
A = A, be 0'('>' y(ll, and let Ul = 0'0)1 X(I) and V l = 1'(1), X(2) Then U I and VI
are normalized linear combinations of X(l) and X(2). respectively, with maxi-
mum correlation.
We now consider finding a second linear combination of X(l), say c: =
a X (I) , and a second linear combination of X(2), say V = 1" X(2), such that of
I

all linear combinations uncorrelated with U, and VI these have maximum

correlation. This procedure is continued. At the rth step we have obtained
linear combinations U l =a(l)'X(l), Vl =y(l)'X(2), ...• Ur a(r)IX(I), v,.=
y(r) X(2) with corresponding correlations [roots of (14)] A(l) = AI> A(2),. .• , A(r),
I

We ask for a linear combination of x(l), U = a X(l), and a linear combina-

I

tion of X(2), V = 1" X (2), that among all linear combinations uncorrelated with
U I ' VI"'" Ur • v,., have maximum correlation. The condition that U be uncor-
related with U, is

(15)
12.2 CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES IN THE POPULATION 491

Then

(16)

The condition that V be uncorrelated with V, is

(17)

By the same argument we have

(18)

We now maximize cC' Ur +I v,+ I, choosing a and "'I to satisfy (3), (4), (15),
and (17) for i = 1,2, ... , r. Consider

, ,
+ "t... va'I
I II aU) + "t... 0."'1
I 'I 22 'Y U),
i= I i= 1

°
where A, /-L, VI> ••• , Vr' 1, ••• , Or are Lagrange multipliers. The vectors of
partial derivatives of I/Ir+ I with respect to the elemellts of a and "'I are set
equal to zero, giving

(20)

(21)

Multiplication of (20) on the left by a(j)' and (21) on the left by 'Y(j), gives

(22)

(23)

Thus (20) and (21) are simply (11) and (12) or alternatively (13). We therefore
take the largest Ai' say, A(r+ I), such that there is a solution to (13) satisfying
(1), (4), (15), and (17) for i = 1, ... , r. Let this solution be a(r+ 1\ 'Y(r+ 1\ and
let Ur+1 = a(r+ I), X(l) and V.r =+ 'Y(r+ I), x (2)
l·
This procedure is continued step by step as long as successive solutions
can be found which satisfy the conditions, namely, (13) for some AI' (3), (4),
(15), and (17). Let m be the number of steps for which this can be done. Now
492 CANONICALCORRELATIONS AND CANO NICAL VARIABlES

we shall show that m=PI' (s;.P2)' Let A=(a(l) '" a(m)), 1'1 =(')'(1) ...
,),(m)), and

o
(24)
o
o o
The conditions (3) and (15) can be summarized as

(25) A'IllA = I.

Since I II is of rank PI and I is of rank m, we have m s;.PI. Now let us show

that m < P I leads to a contradiction by showing that in this case there is
another vector satisfying the conditions. Since A'Ill is m XPI' there exists a
PIX(PI-m) matrix E (of rank PI-m) such that A'IllE=O. Similarly
there is a P2 x (P2 - m) matrix F (of rank P2 - m) such that r~ I22 F = O.
We also have r~I2IE = AA'I1IE = 0 and A'II2F = Ar~InF·= O. Since E
is of rank PI -m, E'IIIE is nonsingular (if m <PI)' and similarly F'I22F
is nonsingular. Thus there is at least one root of

(26)

because IE'IIIEI'IF'InFI *- O. From the preceding algebra we see that

there exist vectors a and b such that

(27) E'I12Fb = vE'IIlEa,

(28) F'I2IEa = vF'I 22 Fb.
Let Ea = g and Fb = h. We now want to show that v, g, and h form a
new solution A(m+I),a(m+I),,),(m+I). Let I71II12h=k. Since A'Illk=
A' I 12 Fb = 0, k is orthogonal to the rows of A' I II and therefore is a linec r
combination of the columns of E, say Ec. Thus the equation II2h = Illk
can be written

(29)

Multiplication by E' on the left gives

(30)

Since E'I II E is nonsingular, comparison of (27) and (30) shows that c = va,
11.2 CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES IN THE POPULATION 493

and therefore k = vg. Thus

(31)

In a similar fashion we show that

(32)

Therefore v=A(m+I),g=«(m+I),h='Y(III+I) is another solution. But this is

contrary to the assumption that A(m), «(m), 'Y(m) '.vas the last possible solution.
Thus m =PI'
The conditions on the A's, «'s and 'Y 's can be summarized as

(33) A'IIIA=I,
(34) A'Il2fl =A,
(35) f;I22fl = I.

(36) f;I22fl = 0,
(37) f~I22f2 = I.

Any f2 can be multiplied on the right by an arbitrary (P2 - PI) X (P2 - PI)
orthogonal matrix. This matrix can be formed one column at a time: 'Y(P' + Il
is a vector orthogonal to I22fl and normalized so 'Y(p,+I)'I 22 'Y(P,+I\ = 1;
",/PI+2) is a vector orthogonal to I 22 (f, 'Y(PI+ 1») and normalized so
'f (PI +2) '1 22 'Y (PI +2) = 1; and so forth. Let f = (f I f 2); this square matrix is
nonsingular since f' I 22 f = I. Consider the determinant

A'
(38) o
o
-AI A 0
= A - AI 0
o 0 -AI

= (-A)P2-PII- I
A
-~\
=(-A)P2- P' I-AII·I-AI-A(-AI)-I A I

= (-A)P2- p' IA 2I - A21

= (-A)P2-PI I1 ( A:! - A(I)2).
494 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

Except for a constant factor the above polynomial is

-AlII Il2
(39)
I:lI - AI22

Thus the roots of (14) are the roots of (38) set equal to zero, namely,
A = ± AI'), i,:: 1, ... ,Pl' and A = 0 (of multiplicity P2 - PI)' Thus (AI'"'' Ap)
= (AI"'" Apt' 0, ... ,0, - ApI"'" - Al ), The set {AU)2}, i = 1, ... , Pl' is the set
{An, i = 1, ... , Pl' To show that the set {A(I)}, i = 1, ... , PI' is the set {A,,},
i = 1, ... , Pl, we only need to show that A(I) is nonnegative (and therefore is
one of the A" i = 1, ... , PI)' We observe that

(40) I 12 'Y(r) -- - A(r)I II (- a(r») ,

~41) ~ ( - a(r)) - - A(r)~ 'Y(r).

~21 - ~22'

thus, if A(r), a(r" 'Y(r) is a solution, so is - A(r), - a(r>, 'Y(r). If A(r) were
negative, then - A(r) would be nonnegative and - A(r) ~ A(r). But since A(r)
was to be maximum, we must have A(r) ~ - A(r) and therefore A(r) ;;:: O. Since
the set {A(I)} is the same as {A,}, i = 1, ... , PI' we must have AU) = A,.
Let

VI
(42) U= =A'X(I),
VPt

Vj

(43) V(I)= = r;x (2),

VPI

(44) V(2) =
V
p
,.,
:
1 r;x(2).
=
VP2

The components of U are one set of canonical variates, and the components
12.2 CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES IN THE POPULATION 495

of V= (V(l)' V(2)'), are the other set. We have

$(~(+U' ~, )(~"
A'
(45) V(l)' V (2) , ) = 0 ~I2W 0
r ~2)
V(2) 0 r ~21
2
122 0 l

[PI A 0

= A [PI 0
0 0 [
PZ-PI

where

AI a a
a A2 a
(46) A=

a a ApI

Definition 12.2.1. Let X = (x(1)' X(2),y, where X(l) has PI components

and X(2) has P2 (= p - PI 2PI) components. Ihe rth pair of canonical variates
is the pair of linear combinations Vr = a(r), X(I) and V, = 'Y(r), X(2\ each of unit
variance and un con-elated with the first r - 1 pairs of canonical variates and
having maximum con-elation. The con-elation is the rth canonical correlation.

Theorem 12.2.1. Let X = (X(l)' X(2),), be a random vector with covariance

matrix ~. The rth canonical con-elation between X(l) and X (2) is the rth largest
root of (14). The coefficients of a(r), X(I) and 'Y(r), X(2) defining the rth pair of
canonical l/ariates satisfy (13) for A = Ar and (3) and (4).

We can now verify (without differentiation) that VI' VI have ,maximum

correlation. The linear combmations a'U=(a'A')X(l) and b'V=(bT')X(2)
are normalized by a'a = 1 and b'b = 1. Since A and rare nonsingular, any
vector a can be written as Aa and any vector 'Y can be written as rb, and
hence any linear combinations a'X(I) and 'Y'X(2) can be written as a'U and
b'V. The correlation between them is
PI
(47) a'( A O)b = L A;a,b,.
i= I

Let Ai aJVr.(A,a,)2 =c i • Then the maximum of

496 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

with respect to b is fOl bi = c i , since Ectb, is the cosine of the angle between
the vector b and (c1 .... ,c,JI'0, ... ,0). Then (47) is

and this is maximized by taking at = 0, i = 2, ... , PI' Thus the maximized

linear combinations are VI and VI' In verifying that V z and Vz form the
second pair of canonical variates we note that lack of correlation between VI
and a linear combination a'U means 0= tfVla'U= tfVIEaf~ =a 1 and lack
of correlation between VI and b'V means 0= hi' The algebra used above
gives the desired result with sums starting with i = 2.
We can derive a single matrix equation for ex or y. If we multiply (11) by A
and (12) by I. Z21 , we have

( 48) AI. 12 y= A2I. Jl ex,

(49) I.Z2! I. 2l ex = Ay.

Substitution from (49) into (48) gives

(50)
or

(51)

The quantities Ar, ... , A;I satisfy

(52)
'fy(51)&lor 1\\2_\2
an d ex (I) , ••• , ex (PI) salIs \2 respectIve
- 1\1'" ., I\PI' "1ar
' Iy. Th e SImI

equations for y(l), ... ,y(P2) occur when >t.2 = Ar .... , A;2 are substituted with

(53) (I. 21 I. Til I.12 - A2I. 22) y = o.

Thfi!orem 12.2.2. The canonical correlations are invariant with respect to
transformations X(lh = C,X(I), where Ct is nonsingular, i = 1,2, and any func-
tion of I. that is invariant is a function of the canonical correlatio'1s.

Proof. Equation (14) is transformed to

(54)
-AC I I. II Cj C I I. 12 C; CI 0 -AI. II I. 12 C'I 0
0= C'z ,
C 2I. 21 Ci -AC2I. 22 C Z 0 C2 I.2! -AI. 22 0
12.2 CORRElATIONS AND VARIATES IN THE POPULATION 497

and hence the roots are unchanged. Conven;dy, let f( Y.. ll , ~ 12, Y.. ~2) be a
vector-valued function of I such that f(CIIIIC~,CIII~C~.C:;I~:!C;)=
f(I", II2' 1: 22 ) for all non~inglliar C, and C~. If C~ = A and C:! = ('I, then
(54) is (~8), which depends only on the canonical correlations. Then f=
fCI, (1\,0), I). •

We can make another interpretation of these developments in terms of

prediction. Consider two random variables U and V with means 0 and
variances (F} and (F1J2 and correlation p. Consider approximating U hy a
multiple of V, say bV; then the mean squared error of approximation is

(55) Iff (U - b V) 2 -- a;, 2-?-b a;,lT;.p + b 2(r, 2

This is minimized by taking b = a;r pi (Fr' We can consider bV as a linear

prediction of U from V; then Ojr2(l - p2) is the mean squared error of
prediction. The ratio of the mean squared error of prediction to the variance
of U is (F/O p2)/a} = 1 - pZ; the complement is a measure of the relative
effect of V on U or the relative effectiveness of V in predicting U. Thus the
greater pZ or Ipi is, the more effective is V in predicting U.
Now consider the random vector X partitioned according to (1), and
consider using a linear combination V = "'I' X(2) to predict a linear combina-
tion U = «' XCI). Then V predicts U best if the correlation between U and V
is a maximum. Thus we can say that «(Ill X(l) is the linear combination of
XCI) that can be predicted best, and "'1(1)1 Xc:!) is the best predictor {Hotelling
(935)].
The mean squared effect of V on U can be measured as
.,
J!) '} '} ~,- '\ ") '\
(56) co (bVr = p--, Iff V- = p-Oj,-,
(I-
I

and the relative mean squared effect can be measured by the ratio
tf(bV)2/lffU:! = pZ. Thus maximum effect of a linear combination of X(:!) on
a linear combination of XU) is made by "'1(1)1 Xc::!) on «(1)1 XO),
In the special case of p, = 1, the one canonical correlation is the multiple
correlation between XU) = XI and X (::!).
The definition of canonical variates and correlations was made in terms of
the covariance matrix I = Iff(X - Iff XXX - Iff X)'. We could extend this
treatment by starting with a normally distributed vector Y with p + P.l
components and define X as the vector having the conditional distribution of
the first p components of Y given the value of the last P.; components. This
498 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLa

\\ould n1~al1 treating X", wi' h mean S Xrp = ey~); the elements of the
covariance matrix would be the partial covariances of the first P elements
of Y.
l11e interpretation of canonical variates may be facilitated by considering
the correlations between the canonical variates and the components of the
original vectors [e.g., Darlington. Weinberg, and Wahlberg (1973)]. The
covariance between the jth canonical variate ~ and Xi is
PI PI
(57) rf~X, = rf E aL)XkX, = ~~ aLilaki ·
k'=l k",l

Since the variance of ~ is 1, the correlation bl tween V) and Xi is

(58) Corr(V) V) = 'LC!.I aLflakl

I -", ~
Vail

An advantage of this measure is that it does not depend on the units of

measurement of X)' However, it is not a scalar multiple of the weight of Xi
in ~ (namely. a;!)).
A special case is III = I, I22 = I. Then

( 59) A'A=I, rT=I,

From these we obtain

(nO) I 12 = A( A 0)r I ,

where A and r are orthogonal and A is diagonal. This relationship is known

as the singular value decomposition of I 12. The elements of A are the square
roots of the characteristic roots of I 12 I'12' and the columns of A are
characteristic vectors. The diagonal elements of A are square roots of the
(possibly nonzero) roots of I'12 I 12' and the columns of r are the character-
istic vectors.

12.3. ESTIMATION OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS

AND VARIATES

12.3.1. Estimation
Let x I'.'. X" be N observations from N(f.L, I). Let xa be partitioned into
I

t\vo suhvectors of PI and P2 components, respectively,

(I) a= 1, ... ,N.

12.3 ESTIMATION OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES 499

The maximum likelihood estimator of I [partitioned as in (2) of Section 122]

is

(2)

=~ (L( X~) -i(l»)( X~I) - i(I»), L( X~I) - i(l))( X~2) - i(2»), ].

N L( X~2) - i(2»)( X~I) - i(l»)' L( X~2) - i(2») (X~2) - i(2»)'

The maximum likelihood estimators of the canonical correlations A and

the canonical variates defined by A and f involve applying the algebra of the
previous section to i. The I!latrices A, A, and flare uniquely defined if we
assume the canonical correlations different and that the first nonzero ele-
ment of each column of A is positive. The indeterminacy in f2 allows
multiplication on the right by a (P2 - PI) X (P2 - PI) orthogonal matrix; this
indeterminacy can be removed by various types of requirements, for example,
that the submatrix formed by the lower P2 - PI rows be upper or lower
triangular with positive diagonal elements. Application of Corollary 3.2.1
then shows that the maximum likelihood estimators of A1>"" Ap are the
roots of

(3)

and the jth columns of A and fl satisfy

(4)

(5) aU)/! II aU) = 1,

t 2 satisfies
(6)

(7)

When the other restrictions on f2 are made, A, f, and A are uniquely

defined.
500 CANON ICAL COR RELATIONs AND CANONICAL VARIABlES

Theorem 12.3.1. Let XI' ••• , X N be N observations from N(JL, I). Let I be
partitioned into PI and P2 (PI :5P2) rows and columns as in (2) in Section 12.2,
and let X" be similarly partitioned as in (1). The maximum likelihood estimators
of the canonical correlations are the roots of (3), where iif are defined by (2).
Th:: maximum likelihood estimators of the coefficients of tile jth canonical
compf)nents satisfy (4) and (5), j = 1, ... , PI; the remaining components satisfy
(6) and (7).

In the population the canonical correlations and canonical variates were

found in terms of maximizing correlations of linear combinations of two sets
of variates. The entire argument can be carried out in terms of the sample.
Thus &(I)IX~) and .y(l)IX~2) have maximum sample correlation between any
linear combinations of x~) and X~2\ and this correlation is II. Similarly,
ti(2)IX~) and .y(2)IX~2) have the second ma",imum $ample correlation, and so
forth.
It may also be observed that we could define the sample canonical variates
and correlations in terms of S, the unbiased estimator of I. Then aU)
= V(N-l)/N&(J), c(f)= V(N-l)/N.y.()\ and Ii satisfy

(8) S 12 c(j) -- Ij S II a() ,

(9) S21 a() = If S 22 c() ,

(10)

We shall call the linear combinations a(j) x(l) and C(j)1 X(2) the sample
" a
canonical variates.
We can also derive the sample canonical variates from the sample correla-
tion matrix,

(11) R= ( " uif ) = ( Sif 1= (r ,f ) = (RII

R
P;:; {6;; ,;S,;S))
A

21

Let

/s-:; o o
o J S22 o
( 12)

o o
12.3 ESTIMATION OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND VARIATES 501

VSPI+I,PI+I 0 o

(13) S2 =
0 Is PI +~ ~
~.PI +~
o

0 0

Then we can write (8) through (10) as

(14) R12(S2C(J») =1)Ru(Sla(j)),

(15) R21(Sla()) = I)R22(S2c()),

(16) (Sla(f))' R II ( Sla())) = 1, (S2C())' R 22 ( S2C())) = 1.

We can give these developments a geometric interpretation. The rows of

the matrix (x I"'" XN) can be interpreted as p vectors in an N-dimensional
space, and the rows of (XI - i, ... , XN - i) are the P vectors projected on the
(N - O-dimensional subspace orthogonal to the equiangular line. Denote
th ese as X *I1" XP*• AnY vect or U * WI'th component s 0: '( X (I)
• , I - X-(I) , ••• , X,.,.(1) -
j(l)) = alxi + ... +ap1x;1 is in the PI-space spanned by xi"",x;I' and a
ve.ctor v'" with componl nts 'Y '( X~2) - i(2), ... , x~~) - j(::») = Y Ix; I'" I
+ ... + 'YP2X; is in the P2-space spanned by X;I + I"" x;.
The cosine of the
1

angle between these two vectors is the correlation between u a = 0:' X~I) and
va = 'Y 'X~2), a = 1, ... , N .. Finding 0: and 'Y to maximize the correlation is
equivalent to finding the veetors in the PI-space and the P2-space such that
the angle between them is least (Le., has the greatest cosine). This gives the
first canonical variates, and the first canonical correlation is the cosine of the
angle. Similarly, the second canonical variates correspond to vectors orthogo~
nal to the first canonical variates and with the angle minimized.

12.3.2. Computation
We shall discuss briefly computation in terms of the population quantities.
Equations (50), (50, or (52) of Section 12.2 can be used. The computation of
II2I221 I21 can be accomplished by solving I21 = I22F for IZ21 I21 and
then multiplying by I12' If PI is sufficiently small, the determinant
II l2 I;;/I 21 - vIlli can be expanded into a polynomial in v, and the
polynomial equation may be solved for v. The solutions are then inserted
iuto (50 to arrive at the vectors 0:.
In many cases P I is too large for this procedure to be efficient. Then one
can use an iterative procedure

(17)
502 CANONICALCORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

starting with an initial approximation a(O); the vector a(i + 1) may be

normalized by

U8 )
The A2(i + 1) converges to At and aU + 1) converges to a(l) (if AI> A2).
This can be demonstrated in a fashion similar to that used for principal
components, using

(19) ""
~ll-I "" "" - 1 ""
~12~22 -
~21- A A 2A- 1

from (45) of Section 12.2. See Problem 12.9.

The right-hand side of (19) is Lf.!la(i)A;&(()', where aU)' is the ith row of
A-I. From the fact that A'III A = I, we find that A'I u = A-I and thus
a(I)'IIl = «(I)'. Now

PI
(20) 1"1/1121221121 - A~a(I)«(I), = E a(()A;ii(i)'
;=2

o o o
o A~ o
=A
o 0

The maximum characteristic root of this matrix is A~. If we now use this
matrix for iteration, we will obtain A~ and a(2). The procedure is continued
to find as many A; and a(i) as desired.
Given A." and aU) we find 'Y(i) from I 21 aU) = A.I I 22 'V(i)
J
or equivalently
(1/ A, }'i;:;:lI 21 aU) = 'Y(i). A check on the computations is provided by com-
U
Paring I 12 'Y ) and AiI l a(i) l' ,.
For the sample we perfonn these calculations with 'It ij or SCj substituted
for I'l' It is often convenient to use Rij in the computation (because
-1 < r 'l < 1) to obtain S 1aU) and S 2 cU). from these aU) and c(j) can be
'
computed.
Modern computational procedures are available for canonical correlations
and variates similar to those sketched for principal components. Let

(21) Z 1 = (x(l)
1 - x-(l) , ... , X(I)
N - X-(I)) ,

(22)
12.4 STATISTICAL INFERENCE S03

The QR decomposition of the transpose of these matrices (Section 11.4) is

Z~ = Q,Rl' where (!tQ( = Ip, and R j is upper triangular. Then Slj = Z,ZJ =
R~Q~QjRj' i, j - 1,2, and Sit = R~Rl' i = 1,2. The canonical correlations are
the singular values of QiQ z and the square roots of the characteristic roots of
(Q'IQ2)(~Q2)' (by Theorem 12.2.2). Then the singular value decomposition
of ~Qz is P(L O)T, where P and T are orthogonal and L is diagonal. To
effect the decomposition Hou~holder transformations are applied to the left
and right of Q'IQ Z to obtain an upper bidiagonal matrix, that is, a matrix with
entries on the main diagonal and first superdiagonal. Givens matrices are
used to reduce this matrix to a matrix that is diagonal to the degree of
approximation required. For mOre detail see Kennedy and Gentle (1980),
Section 7.2 and 12.2, Chambers (1977), Bjorck and Golub (1973), Golub and
Luk (1976), and Golub and Van Loan (1989).

12.4. STATISTICAL INFERENCE

12.4.1. Tests of Independence and of Rank

In Chapter 9 we considered testing the null hypothesis that XCI) and X(Z) are
independent, which is equivalent to the null hypothesis that II2 = O. Since
A' I IZ r = (A 0), it is seen that the hypothesis is equivalent to A - 0, that is,
PI = ... = PPI = O. The likelihood ratio criterion for testing this null hypothe~
sis is the N /2 power of

An A 1z
A

A' 0 Au A 1z "
A 0
AZI An 0
A

r' AZI A zz 0 r"

(1) ----=
IAul 'IAzzl IA'I'lt'l IAIII -IAnl IAI'ltl
A

I A 0
A I 0
PI
0 0 I I A = II - A21 = fl (1 - rl),
III ·111 "
A I i-I

where r l = II ~ ... ~ 'PI = [PI .2 0 are the PI possibly nonzerO sample canoni~
cal correlations. Under the null hypothesis, the limiting distribution of
Bartlett's modification of - 2 times the logarithm of the likelihood ratio
criterion, namely,

PI
(2) - [N - 1(p + 3)] E log(1 - 'l),
i-I
504 CANONICAL CORRELA nONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

is x 2 with PI P2 degrees of freedom. (See Section 9.4.) Note that it is

apprOximately

PI
(3) N E r,2 = N tr A~IIA 12AZ/A21'
i= I

which is N times Nagao's criterion [(2) of Section 9.5].

If 112 =1= 0, an interesting question is how many population canonical
correlations are different from 0; that is, how many canonical variates are
needed to explain the correlations between X( I) and X(2)? The number of
nonzero canonical correlations is equal to the rank of 1 12 • The likelihood
ratio criterion for testing the null hypothesis H k : Pk+l = ... = PPI = 0, that is,
that the rank of 112 is not greater than k, is fl;'!k+ 1(1- r})tN [FujikosJ-i
(1974)]. Under the null hypothesis

PI
(4) - [N - H P + 3)] E 10g(1- rl)
i=k+ I

has approximately the X2~distribution with (PI - k)(P2 - k) degrees of free-

dom. [Glynn and Muirhead (1978) suggest mUltiplying the sum in (4) by
N - k - t(p + 3) + r.~=I(1/rn; see also Lawley (1959).]
To determine the numbers of nonzero and zero population canonical
correlations one can test that all the roots are 0; if that hypothesis is rejected,
test that the PI - 1 smallest roots are 0; etc. Of course, these procedures are
not statistically independent, even asymptotically. All ematively, one could
use a sequence of tests in the opposite direction: Test PPI = 0, then Pp, -1 =
PPI = 0, and so on, until a hypothesis is rejected or until 112 = 0 is accepted.

Yet another procedure (which can only be carried out for small PI) is to test
PPI = 0, then PPI _ I = 0, and so forth. In this procedure one would use r] to
test the hypothesis P, = O. The relevant asymptotic distribution will be
discussed in Section 12.4.2.

12.4.2. Distributions of Canonical CorrelatiC'ns

The density of the canonical correlations is given in Section 13.4 for the case
that 112 = 0, that is, all the population correlations are O. The density when
some population correlations are different from 0 has been given by Constan-
tine (1963) in terms of a hypergeometric function of two matrix arguments.
The large-sample theory is more manageable. Suppose the first k canoni-
cal correlations are positive, less than 1, and Jifferent, and suppose that
125 AN EXAMPLE 505

PI - k correlations are O. Let

r2
Z, = IN I( i=l. .... k.
(5) 2p, 1
.,
z(=Nr,~, i=k+l,····PI·

Then in the limiting distribution ZI" .• ,21. Hnd the set :::, t I ' " ' ' ':"1 arc
mutually independent, z, haf\ the limiting distribution N(O. I). 1.... , k.
and the density of the limiting distribution of zk+ I I " " zp, if\

(6)

.n PI

;=k+l
zt(P~-PI I) n PI

i.J""t.+l
(2, ZJ)'

I <I

This is the density (11) of Section 13.3 of the characteristic roots of a

(PI - k}-order matrix with distribution W(IP1- k ' P2 - k). Note that the nor-
malizing factor for the squared correlations corresponding to nonzero popu-
lation correlations is IN, while the factor corresponding to zero population
correlation is N. See Chapter 13.
In large samples we treat r? as N[ p?,(1/N)4p/:(1- PI:!)2] or r, as
N[ p;,(1/NX1- pnZ] (by Theorem 4.2.3) to obtain tests of p, or confidence
intervals for Pi' Lawley (1959) has shown that the transformation z, ==
tanh -I(r) [see Section 4.2.3] does not stabilize the variance and has a
significant bias in estim adng ,,=
tanh -1 ( p,).

12.5. AN EXAMPLE

In this section we consider a simple illustrative example. Rao [(1<')52), p. 2451

gives some measurements on the first and second adult sons in a sample of 15
families. (These have been used in Problem 3.1 and Problem 4.41.) Let x I (I

be the head length of the first son in the a th family, x 2!l be the head breadth
of the first son, x3a be t.he head length of the second son, and .\""'1 he the
head breadth of the second son. We shall investigate the relations between
the measurements for the first son and for the second. Thus X~IP = (x I,,' x?,,)
506 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

and x~;\ I = (x ~(l' X 4" 1. The data can be summarized ast

( 1) i' = (185.72. 15l.12, 183.84, 149.24),

95.2933 52.8683 69.6617 46.1117

S = 52.8683 54.3600 51.3117 35.0533 S12]
S .
( 69.6617 51.3117 100.8067 56.5400 22
46.1117 35.0533 56.5400 45.0233

The matrix of correlations is

(2)

All of the correlations are about 0.7 except for the correlation between the
two measurements on second sons. In particular, RI2 is nearly of rank one,
and hence the second canonical will be near zero.
We compute

(3) -1 (OA05 769 0.333205 )

R11 R21 = 0.363480 0.428976 '

-IR
R 11 R12 (0.544311 0.53R841 )
(4) 21 = 0.538841 0.534950 .

The determinantal equation is

(5) 0= 10.544311- 1.0000 v 0.538841- 0.7346vl

0.538841 - 0.7346lJ 0.534950 - 1.0000v
= 0.460363 v 2 - 0.287 596v + 0.000830.
The roots are 0.621816 and 0.002900; thus II = 0.788553 and 12 = 0.053852
Corresponding to these roots are the vectors

0.552166 ) 1.366501]
( 6) SaIl) - S a(2)-
I - [ 0.521548 ' 1 - [ -1.378467'

where

( 7)
125 AN EXAMPLE 507

We apply (1/I,)R"i.l R21 to Sla(i) to obtain

( 8) S C(1)= (0.504511) S c (2)= ( 1.767281)

2 0.538242' 2 -1.757288 '
where

(9) o 1= ( 10.0402 0)
";S44 0 6.7099 .

We check these computations by calculating

(10) 1 -1
I;Rll R12 S2 c
( (1))_(0.552157)
- 0.521560 '
..!. -1 (S (2)) _ ( 1.365151)
12 Rll R12 2 C
--1.376741 .

The first vector in (10) corresponds closely to the first vector in (6); in fact, it
is a slight improvement, for the computation is equivalent to an iteration on
Sla(l). The second vector in (10) does not correspond as closely to the second
vector in (6). One reason is that 12 is correct to only four or five significant
figures (as is 112 = Ii) and thus the components of S2 C(2) can be correct to
only as many significant figures; secondly, the fact that S2 C(2) corresponds
to the smaller root means that the iteration decreases the accuracy instead of
increasing it. Our final results are

(1) (2)
if = 0.789, 0.054,

(11) (i) = ( 0.0566 ) ( 0.1400)

a 0.0707 ' -0.1870 '

(i) = (0.0502 ) ( 0.1760)

c 0.0802 ' -0.2619 .

The larger of the two canoni:al correlations, 0.789, is larger than any of
the individual correlations of a variable of the first set with a variable of the
other. The second canonical correlation is very near zero. This means that to
study the relation between two head dimensions of first sons and second sons
we can confine our attention to the first canonical variates; the second
canonical variates are correlated only slightly. The first canonical variate in
each set is approximately proportional to the sum of the two measurements
divided by their respective standard deviations; the second canonical variate
in each set is approximately proportional to the difference of the two
standardized measurements.
508 CANONICAL CORRElATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

12.6. LINEARLY RELATED EXPECfED VALUES

12.6.1. Canonical Analysis of Regression Matrices

In this section we develop canonical correlations and variates for one
stochastic vector and one nonstochastic vector, The expected value of the
stochastic vector is a linear function of the nonstochastic vector (Chapter 8),
We find new coordinate systems so that the expected value of each coordi~
nate of the stochastic vector depends on only one coordinate of the non~
stochastic vector; the coordinates of the stochastic vector are uncorrelated in
the st( .chastic sense, and the coordinates of the nonstochastic vector are
uncorrelated in the sample. The coordinates are ordered according to the
effxt sum of squares relative to the variance. The algebra is similar to that
developed in Section 12.2.
If X has the normal distribution N(JL, I.) with X, JL, and I partitioned as
in (1) and (2) of Section 12.2 and JL = (JL(1)', JL(2)')', the conditional distribu-
tion of X(l) given X(2) is normal with mean

(l)

and covariance matrix

(2)

Since we consider a set of random vectors X~ I), ••• , X;'P with expected values
depending on X~2\ ..• , x~) (nonstochastic), we em write the conditional
expected value of X,~I) as T + P(X~2) - X(2)), where T = JL{I) + p(X(2) - JL(2))
can be considered as a parameter vector. This is the model of Section 8.2
with a slight change of notation.
The model of this section is

(3) cp=1, ... ,N,

where X~2\ .•• , x~) are a set of nonstochastic vectors (q X 1) and .f(2) =
N-IL~"'lX~). The covariance matrix is

(4) rS(X(L)
q, - rSX(I))
q, (x(L)
q, - rSX(I))'
<b = 'V •

Consider a linear combination of X~L), say Uq, = a 'X~I). Tht;n U.p has
variance a ''Va and expected value

(5)
12.6 LINEARLY RELATED EXPECTED VALUES 509

The mean expectrd value is (1/N)L~=1 @U4>= a'T, and the mean sum of
squares due to X(2) is

N N
(6) ~ E (SU4>-a'T)2= ~ E a'p(x;)_i(2))(x~2)-i(2))'p'a
</;>=1 </;>= I

= a'pS22p'a.

We can ask for the linear combination that maximizes the mean sum of
squares relative to its variance; that is, the linear combination of dependent
variables on which the independent variables have greatest effect. We want
to maximize (6) subject to a' '\(I a = L That leads to the vector equation

(7)
for K satisfying

(8)

Multiplication of (7) on the left by a' shows that a 'pS 22 p' a = K for a and
K satisfying a' '\(I a = 1 and (7); to obtain the maximum we take the largest

root of (8), say KI' Denote this vector by a(l), and the corresponding random
variable by UI 4> = a(l), X~I). The expected value of this first canonical vari~
able is SUI4>=a(l)'[p(x~)-i(2))+T]. Let a(l)'P=k;r(l)', where k is
determined so

(9) 1=
N' ( ;r(l)'x~) - ~ E
~ E N )2
;r(l)'x~~)
</;>~I 1)=1

= kE ;r(l),(x~) _i(2))(X~2)
N

</;>= 1
-i(2))';r(l)

= ;r(l)' S22 -y(1).

Then k = {K;. Let UI 4> = ;r(l),(x~) - i(2)). Then SUI 4> = {K; v~1) + a(1)'T.
Next let us obtain a linear combination U4> = a' X~I) that has maximum
effect sum of squares among all linear combinations with variance 1 and
uncorrelated with UI 4>' that is, 0 = S(U4> - SU4>XU 1cb - SU I 4»' = a ''\(Ia(l).
As in Section 12.2, we can set up this maximization problem with Lagrange
multipliers and find that a satisfies (7) for some K satisfying (8) and
a' '\(I a = L The process is continued in a manner similar to that in Section
12.2. We summarize the results.
The jth canonical random variable is ~cb = aU)'Xil), where aU) satisfies
(7) for K = K) and a(f)''\(Ia U ) = 1; Kl ~ K2 ~ ... ~ Kp , are the roots of (8).
510 CANONICAL CORREIATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

We shall assume the rank of f3 is PI :S Pz' (Then Kpl > 0,) 01/> has the largest
effect sum of squares of linear combinations that have unit variance and are
uncorrelated with U'cb"'" ~-l. cb' Let 'Y U ) = (1/ ji;)f3'a(J), Vj = a(J)/T , and
V)cb = 'Y(J)'(xCj;) - i(~)), Then

(10)

(11 )

(12) i =1= j,

(13)

(14) GU = av(l) + v 4>= l, .. "N,

I/> I/> '

(IS) n1 1/>='
EN ( 1',,, - 1
N
N)(
E l"1 l'. - 1
N
N v" 1'= /,
E
~=l ~=,

The random canonical variates are uncorrelatcd and have variance I, The
expected value of each random canonical variate is a multiple of the corre
sponding nonstochastic canonical variate plus a constant. The nonstochastic
canonical variates have sample variance 1 and are uncorrelated in the
sample,
If PI > P2' the maximum rank of f3 is P2 and Kp2+1 = ... = Kpl = O. In that
case we define A,=(a(I)" .. ,a(P2)) and A 2 =(a(P2+1) .. "a(PI)), where
a 0 '. ... ,a(pz) (corresponding to positive K'S) are defined as before and
a' p:-'-ll, ... , a(pd are any vectors satisfying aU)' WaUl = 1 and a(j)'Wa U ) ==
to _il) +
O, l. =1= j,. Th en (()J:OU(')
I/> -- u,v,t, v" l' -- 1, .•• , P2' an d (()J:OU("
I/> -- v,. 1• -- P2 +
1,,,,,PI'
In either case if the rank of f3 is r s; min(PI' p), there are r roots of (8)
that are nonLero and hence GUJI) = {jIV~) + v, for i = 1,,,,, r.
12.6 LINEARLY RELATED EXPECfED VALUES Sl1

12.6.2. Estimation
Let X~I), •.• , x~) be a set of observations on xf'\ ... , X~) with the probability
structure developed in Section 12.6.1, and let X~2\ ... , x~) be the set of
corresponding independent variates. Then we can estimate T, 13, and '\(I by

N
(16) T= ~ E x~) = x(l),
<f.>=1

(17) 13 = AI2A221 = Sl2 S;I,

( 18) W =! E [x~)
N

<f.>=l
- j(1) - 13 (x~) - j(2))][ X~l) - j(l) - 13 (x~) - j(2)) r
= !(All-AI2A221A21)=Sll-SI2S22IS21'

where the A's and S's are defined as before. (It is convenient to divide by
n = N - 1 lnstead of by N; the latter would yield maximum likelihood
estimators.)
The sample analogs of (7) and (8) are

(19) 0= (pS22 p' - kW)a

= [SI2S;IS21-k(SII-S12S;lS21)]a,

(20) 0= IPS22P'- kWI

= ISI2Si2IS21-k(SIl -SI2 SiZ IS 2dl.

Thc l'Oots k I ~ ." ~ kp, of (20) e~timate the roots KI ~ .,. ~ Kf'1 of (8), and
the corresponding solutions a(l), ... , ii(pd of (19), normalized by a(I)'Wa(i) = 1,
estimate a(I), ••• , a(P'). Then c<J) = (1/ ,[k;)P'a(j) estimates 'Y<J1, and nj =
a(j)'j(l) estimates vf' The sample canonical variates are a(j)'x~) and c(j)'(x~)
- j(2)), j = 1, ... , PI' cP = 1, ... , N. If PI> P2' then PI - P2 more a(j)'s can
be defined satisfying a(j)'Wa(J) = 1 and a(j)'Wa(l) = 0, i:fo j.

12.6.3. Re!ations Between Canonical Variates

In Section 12.3, the roots II ~ ... ~ Ipl were defined to satisfy

(21)
512 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

Since (20) can be written

(22)

we see that 11 = k,/O + k j ) and k, = 1;/0 -I;), i = 1, ... , PI' The vector a(!)
in Section 12.3 satisfies

(23) 0 = (SI2S;IS21 -1;SII)a(i)

= ( SI2 S;I S21 - 1 ~' k, S11 ) a(l)

= 1 ~ k, [SI2 S;IS21 - k,( S11 - S12 S22 IS21)] a(I),

which is equivalent to (19) for k = k i • Comparison of the normaliza-

tions a(I)'Slla(I)=1 and a(I)I(SII-SI2S;IS~I)ii(')=1 shows that li(i)=
(1//1-1} )a(I). Then c(J) = 0/ {k;)S;IS 2Ia(J) = c(J).
We see that canonical variable analysis can be applied when the two
vectors are jointly random and when one vector is random and the other is
nonstochastic. The canonical variables defined by the two approac)les are the
same except for norma:ization. The measure of relationship belween corre-
sponding canonical variables can be the (canonical) correlation or it can be
the ratio of "explained" to "unexplained" variance.

12.6.4. Testing Rank

The number of roots Kj that are different from 0 is the rank of the regression
matrix p. It is the number of linear combinations of the regression variables
that are needed to express the expected values of X~I). We can ask whether
the rank is k (1 ~ k s P 1 if PIS P2) against the alternative that the rank is
greater than k. The hypothesis is

(24)

The likelihood ratio criterion [Anderson (1951 b)] is a power of

PI P,
(25) n
i=k+1
(1 + k I) -I = n
i=k+1
(1 + In,

Note that this is the same criterion as for the case of both vectors stochastic
(Section 12.4). Then
PI
(26) -[N-Hp+3)] L:
/=k+1
10g(1- l n
12.6 LINEARLY RELATED EXPECt'ED VALUES 513

has approximately the x2-distribution with (PI - kXP2 - k) degrees of

freedom.
The determination of the rank as any number between 0 and P I can be
done as in Section 12.4.

12.6.S. Linear Functional Relationships

The study of Section 12.6 can be carried out in other terms. For example, the
balanced one~way analysis of variance can be set up as

(27) a= 1, ... ,m, j= 1, ... ,1,

(28) @Va =: 0, a= I .. .. ,n.,

where @ is q XPI of rank q «PI)' This is a special case of the model of

Section 12.6.1 with cP = 1, ... , N, replaced by the pair of indices (a. j),
X~I) = faj' T = f.1-, and p(x~) - i(2)) = Va by use of dummy variables as in
Section 8.8. The rank of (v I' ... , v m ) is that of 13, namely, r = P I - q. There
are q roots of (8) equal to 0 with
m
(29) pS22p' = 1 E vav~.
a=1

The model (27) can be interpreted as repeated observations on Va + f.1- with

error. The component equations of (28) are the linear functional relation-
ships.
Let Ya= (l/l)I:j=IYaJ and Y = (l/m)I::=IYa' The sum of squares for effect
is
m
(30) H = 1 E (Ya - Y)(Ya - y)' = nPSnP'
a=J

with m - 1 dt grees of freedom, and the sum of squares for e"or is

m I
(31) G= E E (YaJ - Ya )(YaJ - Ya)' = nW
a= I J = I

with m(l - 1) degrees of freedom. The case PI < P2 corresponds to PI < 1

Then a maximum likelihood estimator of @ is

(32) ~=(a-(r+l)
u )~~.,
a-(Pil)' ,
514 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

and the maximum likelihood estimators of va are

(33 ) a= 1, ... ,n.

The estimator (32) can be multiplied by any nonsingular q X q matrix on the

left to obtain another. For a fuller discussion, see Anderson (1984a) and
Kendall and Stuart (1973).

12.7. REDUCED RANK REGRESSION

Reduced rank regression involves estimating the regression matrix t3 in

tf X(l)IX(~) = t3X(2) by a matrix ~ of preassigned rank k. In the limited-infor·
mation maximum likelihood method of estimating an equation that is part of
a system of simultaneous equations (Section 12.8), the regres:..ion matrix is
assumed to be of rank one less than the order of the matrix. Anderson
0951a) derived the maximum likelihood estimator of t3 when the model is

( 1) a=1, ... ,N,

the rank of t3 is specified to be k (:5 PI)' the vectors xF), ... , x~) are
nonstochastic, and Za is normally distributed. On the basis of a sample
XI"'" x N , define i by (2) of Section 12.3 and A, A, and t by (3), (4), and
(5). Partition A = diag( A I' A2)' A= (A I' A2 ), and r
"2 _1.
= (t p t 2), where AI'
AI' and r l have k columns. Let <1>1 = AI(Ik - AI) '.
'" A A. '"

Definition 12.7.1 (Reduced Rank Regression) The reduced rank regressicn

estimator in (1) is

( 2)

The maximum likelihood estimator of t3 of rank k is the same for X(l) and
X'z) normally distributed because the density of X = (X( 1)', X(2)'), factors as

Reduced rank regression has been applied in many disciplines, including

econometrics, time series analysis, and signal processing. See, for example,
Johansen (1995) for use of reduced rank regression in estimation of cointe-
gration in economic time series, Tsay and Tiao (1985) and Ahn and Reinsel
(988) for a pplications in stationary processes, and Stoica and Viberg (1996)
12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 515

for utilization in signal processing. In general the estimated reollced rank

regression is a better estimator in a regression model than the unrestricted
estimator.
In Section 13.7 the asymptotic distribution of the reduced rank regression
estimator is obtained under the assumptions that are sufficient for the
asymptotic normality of the least squares estimator B = i 12 i;21. The asymp-
totic distribution of fjk has been obtained by Ryan, Hubert, Carter, Sprague,
and Parrott (1992), Schmidli (1996), Stoica and Viberg (1996), and Reinsel
and Velu (1998) by use of the expected Fisher information on the assumption
that Za is normally distributed. Izenman (1975) suggested the term reduced
rank regression.

12.8. SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS

12.8.1. The Model

Inference for structural equation models in econometrics is related to canoni-
cal correlations. The general model is

(1 ) By, + fz, = up t=l, ... ,T,

where B is G X G and r is G X K. Here y/ is composed of G jointly

dependent variables (endogenous), z/ is composed of K predetermined
variables (exogenous and lagged dependent) which are treated as "indepen-
dent" variables, and U j consists of G unobselVable random variables with

(2)
We require B to be nonsingular. This model wa~ initiated by Haavelmo
(1944) and was developed by Koopmans, Marschak, Hurwicz, Anderson,
Rubin, Leipnik, et ai., 1944-1954, at the Cowles Commission for Research in
Economics. Each component equation represents the behavior of some group
(such as consumers or producers) and has economic meaning.
The set of structural equations (1) can be solved for y/ (because B is
nonsingular )~
(3) y/ = Uz/ + v"
where

(4) 0=-B-1f,
with

(5)
516 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

say. The equation (3) is called the reduced form of the model. It is a
multivariate regression model. In principle, it is observable.

12.8.2. Identification by Specified Zeros

The structural equation (1) can be multiplied on the left by an arbitrary
nonsingular matrix. To determine component equations that are economi-
cally meaningful, restrictions must be imposed. For example, in the case of
demand and supply the equation describing demand m ly be distinguished by
the fact that it includes consumer income and excludes cost of raw materials,
which is in the supply equation. The exclusion of the latter amounts to
specifying that its coefficient in the demand equation is O.
We consider identification of a structural equation by specifying certain
coefficients to be O. It is convenient to treat the first equation. Suppose the
variables are numbered so that the first G 1 jointly dependent variables are
included in the first equation and the remaining G 2 = G - G 1 are not and
the first KI predetermined variables are included and K2 = K - KI are
excludrd. Then we can partition the coefficient matrices as

f)=[~1 o
(6) (B "I'
~l,
where the vectors ~, 0, "I, and 0 have G 1 , G 2, Kh and K2 components,
respectively. The reduced form is partitioned wnformally into G 1 and G 2
sets of rOws and KI and K2 sets of columns:

(7)

The relation between B, f, and n can be expressed as

The upper right-hand corner of (8) yields

(9)

To determine ~ (G 1 X 1) uniquely except for a constant of proportionality we

need
(10)
12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 517

This implies

(11 )

Addition of G 2 to (11) gives the order condition

( 12)

The number of specified O's in an identified equation must be at least equal

to 1 less than the number of equations (or jointly dependent variables).
It can be shown that when B is nonsingular (10) holds if and only if the
rank of the matrix consisting of the columns of (B r) with specified O's in the
first row is G - 1.

12.8.3. Estimation of the Reduced Form

The model (3) is a typical multivariate regression model. The obselVations
are

(13) (~: ),.,(~:).

The usual estimators of " and n (Section 8.2) are

(14)
T
P= EYlz~ Ez,z~
(T )-1 ,
(=1 (= 1

1 T
E (Y, -
A

(15) n= T Pz ,)( y, - Pz , )' .

1= I

These are maximum likelihood estimators if the v, are normal.

If the z, are exogenous (regardless of normality), then

(16) $ vec P = vec n, C(vecP) =A- l ®n,

where
T
(17) A= E Z,Z~
1""1

and vec{d l1 •• " d m ) = (d~,. ,., d'm)'. If, furthermore, the I', are normal, then
P is normal and Tn has the Wishart distribution with covariance matrix n
and T - K degrees of freedom.
518 CANON ICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

12.8.4. Estimation of the Coefficients of an Equation

First, (:{)Ilsider the estimation of the vector of coefficients ~ when K2 =

G l - L Let

(18)

be partitioned as n. Then the probability is 1 that rank(PI2) = G, - 1 and

the eq uation

(19)

has a nontrivial solution that is unique except for a constant of proportional-

ity. This is the maximum likelihood estimator when the disturbance terms .are
normal.
If K~ ;:>c G,. then the probability is 1 that rank(P'2) = G 1 and (19) has only
the trivial solution ~ = 0, which is unsatisfactory. To obtain a suitable
estimator we find ~ to minimize ~I Pl2 in som; sense relative to another
function of ~/.
Let z, be partitioned into subvectors of K, and K2 components:

( ~O)

(21 )

(22)

Let Yl and {l be partitioned into Gland G 2 components:

(23)

( 24)
12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 519

~ow set up the multivariate analysis of variance table for y(1):

Source Sum of Squares

T
E Y!')z~')'Al,'z~')y~I)'
s,l= 1

P'2 A n ·1 Pi2
T
Error E (y~') - PIlZ~') - P'2Z~2))(y}') - PllzP) - P'2Z~2))'
1=1

T
Total E y,(l)y}I),
1=1

The first term in the table is the (vector) sum of squares of y~l) due to the
effect of zP). The second term is due to the effect of Z~2) beyond the effect of
zP). The two add to (PAP')w which is the total effect of Z,' the predeter-
mined variables.
We propose to find the vector ~ such that effect of Z~2) and ~' y~l) beyond
the effect of z)l) is minimized relative to the error sum of squares of ~'YI(l).
We minimize

(25)
~'( PI2S22"P;2)~ = (~' P'2 )S22"(~' P'2 ),
~'nll~ ~'nll~

where Tn = r.;""y,y,- P/:.'P'. This estimator has been called the least vari-
ance ratio estimator. Under normality and based only on the 0 restrictions on
the coefficients of this single equation, the estimator is maximum likelihood
and is known as the limited-information maximum likelihood (LIML) estimator
[Anderson and Rubin (1949)].
The algebra of minimizing (25) is to find the smallest root, say v, of

(26)

and the corresponding vector satisfying

(27)

The vector is normalized according to some rule. A frequently used rule is to

520 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

set one (nonzero) coefficient equal to 1, say the first, ~I = L If we write

(28) ~~(~.). ~ ~ (~.).

(29)
"12 =
(W12 )
llf2 • Pu = (p"Pf2 )'
(30)
,
!lll=
(~ll :(1) )
"
oo(ll !l*II '

then (27) can be replaced by the linear equation

The first component equation in (27) has been dropped because it is linearly
dependent on the other equations [because v is a root of (26)].

12.8.5. Relation to the Linear Functional Relationship

We now show that the model for the single linear functional relationship
(q = 1) is identical to the model for structural equations in the special case
that G 2 = 0 (y}ll = y,) and z}ll:;: 1 (K 1 = 1). Write the two models as

(32) a=l, ... ,n, j=l, ... ,k,

where

(33)

and

(34) t= 1, ... ,T,

where II = (lll "2)' The correspondence between the models is p ~ G = G I,

( 35)

(36) (a,j)~t,

(37) '\}I'~!l,

We can write the model for the linear functional relationship with dummy
12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 521

variables. Define

o
(38) Sal = 1 - ath position, a=i •... ,Il-i.

(39)

Then

(40) a= 1, ... ,n,

where j may be suppressed. Note

(41) VII = - ( V I + ... + VII - I) •

The correspondence is

(42) ,,
1 ~Z(I) S Ct} ~ ..
.. (~)
,.

(43) ( V I , ••. , v,! _ I) ~ n2,

(44)

Let P = (PI P2)' In terms of the statistics we have the correspondence

(46)

( 47)

The effect matrix is

n
(48) H=k E (xa-x)(ia-x)' ~P:!A22IP;,
a"'I
522 CANONICALCORRELATJONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

and the error matrix is

n k T
(49) G= L L (xa)-ia)(xa)-ia)'~TO= L(Yt-PZI)(YI-PZ I )'.
cr=1 )=1 1=1

Then tht.: estimator Ii of the linear functional relationship for q = 1 is

identical to the LIML estimator [Anderson (l951b),(1976),(1984a)].

12.8.6. Asymptotic Theory as T -+ 00

We shall find the limiting distribution of ';1\~* - (3*) defined by (28) and
(31) by showing that ~* is asymptotically equivalent to

( 50) a* -
PTSLS - ~
(p*S p*,)-lp*S
12 22·[ 12
'
22 22·1 P 12 •

This derivation is essentially the same as that given in Anderson and Rubin
(1950) except for notation. The estimator defined by (50), known as the two
stage least squares (TSLS) estimator, is an approximation to the LIML
estimator obtained by dropping the terms vOrl and vW(l) from (31). Let
~* = ~tlML' We assume the conditions for tt(P - IT) having a limiting
normal distribution. (See Theorem 8.11.1.)

Lemma 12.8.1. Suppose (lIT)A -+ A 0, a positive definite matrix, as T-+

x. Then v = O/lIT), where v is the smallest root of (26).

Prool Let PI'2 = tt(P 12 - "12)' Then because (3'"12 =0

(51)

Since

(52)

the lemma follows. •

12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 523

The import of Lemma 12.8.1 is that the difference between the LIML
estimator and the TSLS estima.tor is OpC1/T). We have

= (P('2 S22 _I P('i.) - I P(2 S22'1 ll2

- (P(2S22'1 P('2 - vO ll f I (P('2 S22 .IP'12 - VOl(I))

= [( Pi2 S22 _I p(2) -1 - ( Pt2 S22'1 Pii. - v 0 II f I] P~ S22 .1 P'I:'

+ (Pi2 S22'1 pti - VO II ) -I VOl(I)

= - V( Pt2S22 'IPi.;) -I 011 (P(2S22'1 P('2 - vO II) -I Pi2 S 22.1P'12

Consider

T T
' +P*'fl*=P' fl=A- 1 "Z(2.I)y(I)fl=A- 1 "Z(2'1)U
(54) P 12 12.... 12.... 22.1 ~ 1 I.... 22.1 ~ 1 II'
,""1

where Z(H)
1
= Z(2)
1
- A 2. A -I
II z(I)
1 •
Thus $(p'12 + p*' fl*) = $ P'12 ....
12 .... fl = ° and

Note that ~~LS - (3* = - (Pi2 S22.1 p~)-I Pi'zS22'1 P{2(3 and ((3', O)Y, +
(y',O)z, = u ll •

Theorem 12.8.1. Under the conditions of Theorem 8.11.1

p
Proof The theorem follows from (55), S22'1 ~ S~2'1' and P I2 ~ ll12'

•
Because of the correspondence between the LIML estimator and the
maximum likelihood estimator for the linear functional relationship as out-
lined in Section 12.7.5, this asymptotic theory Can be tr<1nslated for the latter.
524 CANONICALCORRELA nONS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

Suppose the single linear functional relationship is written as

(57) a = 1, ... , n,

where

(58) a = 1, ... , n.

Let n (- K) be fixed, and let the number of replications k ~ 00 (correspond~

ing to T jK ~ 00 for fixed K). Let (T2 = W'II~.
Since nl2An<ln'12 corresponds to kr.:=lv:v:', ~* here has the approxi-
mate distribution

(59)

Although Anderson and Rubin (1950) showed that Vn.~1 and vW(l) could
be dropped from (31) defining ~tlML and hence that ~tsLS was asymptoti-
cally equivalent to ~tsLS' they did not explicitly propose ~tsLS' [As part of
the Cowles Commission program, Chernoff and Divinsky (1953) developed a
computational program of ~LlML'] The TSLS estimator was proposed by
Basmann (J 957) and Theil (J 96 I), It corresponds in the linear functional
relationship setup to ordinary least squares on the first coordinate. If some
other coefficient of ~ were set equal to one, the minimization would be in
the direction of that coordinate.
Con~ider thc general linear functional relationship when the error covari-
ance matrix is unknown and there are replications. Constrain B to be

(60)

Partition

( 61)

Then the least squares estimator of B* is

12.8 SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS MODELS 525
.... p
For n fixed and k ~ 00 and Bts, ~ B* and

[See Anderson (1984b).] It was shown by Anderson (1951c) that the q

smallest sample roots are of such a probability order that the maximum
likelihood estimator is asymptotically equivalent, that is, the limiting distribu-
tion of {f vec(B~L - B*) is the right-hand side of (63).

12.S.7. Other Asymptotic Theory

III terms of the linear functional relationship it may be mOle natural to
consider 11. ~ co and k fixed. When k = 1 and the error covariance matrix is
d
'l lp, GIeser (1981) has given the asymptotic theory. For the simultaneous
equations modd, the corresponding conditions are that K'l ~ oc, T ~ x, and
K'l/T approaches a positive limit. Kunitomo (1980) has given an asymptotic
expansion of the distribution in the case of p = 2 and m = q = 1.
When n ~ co, the least squares estimatOr (i.e., minimizing the sum of
squares of the residuals in one fixed direction) is not consistent; the LlML
and TSLS estimators are not asymptotically equivalent.

12.S.S. Distributions of Estimators

Econometricians have studied intensively the distributions of TSLS and
LlML estimator, particularly in the case of two endogenous variables.
Exact distributions have been given by Basmann (196 1). (11)03), Ridwn.lson
(1968), Sawa (1969), Mariano and Sawa (972), Phillips (1980), and Anderson
and Sawa (1982). These have not been very informative because they are
usually given in terms of infinite series the properties of which are unknown
or irrelevant.
A more useful approach is by approximating the distributions. Asymptotic
expansions of distributions have been made by Sargan and Mikhail (1971),
Anderson and Sawa (1973), Anderson (1974), Kunitomo (1980), and others.
Phillips (1982) studied the Pade approach. See also Anderson (1977).
Tables of the distributions of the TSLS and LIML estimators in the case
of two endogenous variables have been given by Anderson and Sawa
(1977),(1979), and Anderson, Kunitomo, and Sawa (1983a).
Anderson, Kunitomo, and Sawa (1983b) graphed den&ities of the maxi-
mum likelihood estimator and the least squares estimator (minimizing in one
direction) for the linear functional relationship (Section 12.6) for the case
526 CANONICALCORRELAll0NS AND CANONICAL VARIABLES

p = 2, m = q = 1, 'I' = u ~ '1'0 and for various values of (3, n, and

~64)

PROBLEMS

12.1. (Sec. 12.2) Let Za = Z!a = 1, a = 1, ... ,n, and P = 13. Verify that a(l) = I-II3.
Relate this result to the discriminant function (Chapter 6).

12.2. (Sec. 12.2) Prove that the roots of (14) are real.

12.3. (Sec. 12.2)

U=a'Xl1l, V='Y'X(l), GU 2 =1=GV 2 ,where a and '1 are vectOrs.

Show that choosing a and '1 to maximize G UV is equivalent to choosing
a and '1 to minimize the generalized variance of (U V).
tb) Let X' = (X(l) , X(2)' X(3)'), GX=O,

U=a'X(ll, V='Y'X(23 l , W=I3'X(J), GU 2 =GV 2 =GW 2 =L Consider

finding a, '1, 13 to minimize the generalized variance of (U, V, W). Show
that thi:; minimum is invariant with respect to transformations X*Ci) =
A,X(/), \Ail *" O.
(c) By using such transformations, transform I into the simplest possible
form.
(d) In the case of XCi) consisting of two components, reduce the problem (of
minimizing the generalized variance) to its simplest form.
te) In this case give the derivative equations.
to Show that the minimum generalized variance is 1 if and only if I 12 = 0,
II3 = 0, I23 = O. (Nole: This extension of the notion of canonical variates
does not lend itself to a "nice" explicIt treatment.)

12.4. (Sec. l2.2) Let

X(I) =AZ + y(ll,

X(2) = BZ + y(2l ,
PROBLEMS 527

where yO>, y(2), Z are independent with mean zero and covariance matrices 1
with appropriate dimensionalities. Let A=(al, ... ,ak ), B=(bl" .. ,bk ). and
suppose that A'A, B' B are diagonal with positive diagonal elements. Show
that the canonical variables for nonzero canonical correlations are propor-
tional to a~X(1),b~X(2). Obtain the canonical correlation coefficients and ap-
propriate normalizing coefficients for the canonical variables.

12.5. (Sec. 12.2) Let Al ~ A2 2: ... ~ Aq > 0 be the positive roots of (14), where III
and I22 are q X q nonsingular matrices.

(a) What is the rank of I12?

(h) Write 0;=1 A; as the determinant of a rational function of Ill> I 12 • I 21 •
and I 22 • Justify your answer.
(c) If Aq = 1, what is the rank of

12.6. (Sec. 12.2) Let III (1-g)lpl +geple~\, I 22 =0 h)/p, +hep2e~2' I 12 =

kep,e~2' where -1/(PI 1) <g < 1, -1/(P2 1) < It < I, and k is suitably
restricted. Find the canonical correlations and variates. What is the appropri-
ate restriction on k?

12.7. (Sec. 12.3) Find the canonical correlations and canonical variates between
the first two variables and the last three in Problem 4.42.

12.8. (Sec. 12.3) Prove directly the sample analog of Theorem 12.2.1.

12.9. (Sec. 12.3) Prove that Ar(f + 1) -? Ai and a(f + 1) -? a(l) if a(O) is such that
a'(O}Illa(l) =1= O. [Him: U~O IIIII'2IitI2! = AA2A- I.]

12.10. (Sec. 12.6) PrOVe (9), (10). and (11).

12.11. Let Al 2: A2 ~ ... :2: Aq be the roots of I I I - AI21 = 0, where I I and I2 are
q X q positive definite covariance matrices.

(a) What does Al = Aq = 1 imply about the relationship of II and I2?

(b) What does Aq> 1 imply about the relationships of the ellipsoids x'IIIx
=c and x'I 2 1X=C?
(c) What does Al > 1 and Aq < 1 imply about the relationships of the ellip-
soids x'Ii'X=c and x'I 2 IX=C?

12.12. (Sec. 12.4) For q = ~ express the criterion (2) of Section 9.5 in terms of
canonical correlations.

12.13. Find the canonical correlations for the data in Problem 9.11.
CHAPTER 13

The Distributions of Characteristic

Roots and Vectors

13.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we find the distribution of the sample principal component

vectOrs and their sample variances when all population variances are 1
(Section 13.3). We also find the distribution of the sample canonical correla-
tions and one set of canonical vectors w'1en the two set& of original variates
are independent. This second distribution will be shown to be equivalent to
the distribution of roots and vectors obtained in the next section. The
distribution of the roots is particularly of interest because many invariant
tests are functions of these roots. For example, invariant tests of the general
linear hypothesis (Section 8.6) depend on the sample only through the roots
of the determinantal equation

(1)

If the hypothesis is true, the roots have the distribution given in Theorem
13.2.2 or 13.2.3. Thus the significance level of any invariant test of the
general linear hypothesis can be obtained from the distribution derived in the
next section. If the test criterion is one of the ordered roots (e.g., the largest
root), then the desired distribution is a marginal distribution of the joint
distribution of roots.
The limiting distributions of the roots are obtained under fairly general
conditions. These are needed to obtain other limiting distributions, such as
the distribution of the criterion for testing that the smallest variances of

An Introduction to Multivariate StatLrtical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

528
13.2 THE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 529

principal components are equaL Some limiting distributions are obtained for
elliptically contoured distributions.

13.2. mE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES

13.2.1. The Transformation

Let us consider A* and B* (p xp) distributed independently according to
W(~, m) and W(~, n) respectively (m, n ?! p). We shall call the roots of

(1) IA* -lB*1 = 0

the characteristic roots of A* in the metric of B* and the vectors satisfying

(2) (A* lB* )x* = 0

the characteristic vectors of A* in the metric of B*. In this section we shall

consider the distribution of these roots and vectors. Later it will be shown
that the squares of canonical correlation coefficients have this distribution if
the population canonical correlations are all zero.
First we shall transform A* and B* so that the distributions do not
involve an arbitrary matrix ~_ Let C be a matrix such that CIC' = 1. Let

(3) A CA*C', B= CB*C'.

Then A and B are independently distributed according to W(I, m) and

W(I, n) respectively (Section 7.3.3). Since

!A lBI = Ic.,.(*C' ICB*C'!

=IC(A* lB*)C'1 = ICI-! A* -IB* !'IC'I,
the roots of (1) are the roots of

(4) IA -IBI = o.
The corresponding vectors satisfying

(5) (A-lB)x=O
satisfy
(6) o C- J ( A - IB) x
= C- I ( CA*C' -ICB*C')x
= ( A * - IB *) C I X.

Thus the vectors x* are the vectOrs C' x.

530 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROars AND VECfORS

It will be convenient to consider the roots of

(7) IA - f( A + B) I = 0
and the vectors y satisfying

( 8) [A - f(A +B)]y = O.

The latter equation can be written

(9) 0= (A - fA - fB)y = [(1- f)A -fB]y·

Since the probability that f= 1 (i.e., that \ - B\ = 0) is 0, the above equation

IS

( 10)

Thus the roots of (4) are related to the roots of (7) by 1= f /(1 - f) or
f= I/(i + I), and. the vectors satisfying (5) are equal (or proportional) to
those satisfying (8).
We now consider finding the distribution of the roots and vectors satisfy-
ing (7) and (8). Let the roots be ordered fi > f2 > ... > fp > 0 since the
probability of two roots being equal is 0 [Okamoto (1973)]. Let

(ll) F=

Suppose the corresponding vector solutions of (8) normalized by

(12) y'(A+B)y= I

arc YI"'" Yp' These vectors must satisfy

( U)

because y;AYj = f~y;(A + B)Yj and y;AYj = f,y;(A + B)Yj' and this can be only
*
if (13) holds (f, fj)'
Let the p x p matrix Y be

P4)
13.2 THE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 531

Equation (8) can be summarized as

(15) Af= (A + B)fF,

and (12) and (13) give
( 16) Y'(A +B)f=l.
From (15) we have
( 17) f'Af= f'(A +B)YF=F.
Multiplication of (16) and (17) on the left by (f')-l and on the right by f- I
gIves
A + B = ( f') -1 f- l ,
( 18)
A = (f') -1 FY- 1 •

Now let f- I = E. Then

A+B=E'E,
(19) A=E'FE,
B=E'(I F)E.
We now consider the joint distribution of E and F. From (19) we see that
E and F define A and B uniquely. From (7) and (11) and the ordering
II > '" > Ip we see that A and B define F uniquely. Equations (8) for 1= Ii
and (12) define Yi uniquely except for multiplication by - 1 (Le., replacing Yi
by -y). Since YE = I, this means that E is defined uniquely except that rows
of E can be multiplied by - 1. To remove this indetenninacy we require that
eil :2!. O. (The probability that ell = 0 is 0.) Thus E and F are uniquely defined
in terms of A and B.

13.2.2. The Jacobian

To find the density of E and F we substitute in the density of A and B
according to (19) and multiply by the Jacobian of the transformation. We
devote this subsection to finding the Jacobian

(20) O(A,B) I
I a(E,F) .

Since the transformation from A and B to A and G =A +B has Jacobian

unity, we shall find

(21) O(A,G)I=IO(A,B)1
Io(E,F) a(E,F)'
532 THE DISTRIBU1l0NSOF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECTORS

First we notice that if Xa =fa(YI' ... , Yn), a = 1, ... ,n, is a one-to-one

transformation, the Jacobian is the determinant of the linear transformation

(22)

where dx a and dYf3 are only formally differentials (i.e., we write these as a
mnemonic device). If fa(YI"'" Yn) is a polynomial, then afal aY/3 is the
coefficient of y3 in the expansion of fa(YI + y~ , ... ,Yn + Y:) [in fact the
coefficient in the expansion of fa(YI"'" Yp-l' Y/3 + y3, YP+ l' ... , Yn)]'
The elements of A and G are polynomials in E and F. Thus the cerivative of
an element of A is the coefficient of an element of E* and F* in the
expansion of (E + E*)'(F + F*)(E + E*) and the derivative of an element of
G is the coefficient of an clemcnt of E* and F* in thc expansion of
(E + E* Y( E + E*). Thus the Jacobian of the transformation from A, G
to E, F is the determinant of the linear transformation

(23) dA (dE)'FE+E'(dF)E+E'F(dE),
(24) dG = (dE)'E + E'(dE).

Since A and G (dA and dG) are symmetric, only the functionally indepen-
dent component equations above are used.
Multiply (23) and (24) on the left by E' -1 and on the right by E-l to
obtain

(25) E' l(dA)E-l =E'-l(dE),F+dF+F(dE)E- I ,

(26) E'l(dG)E-1=E'-I(dE)'+(dE)E- I

It should be kept in mind that (23) and (24) are now considered as a linear
transformation without regard to how the equations were obtained.
Let

(27) E I -1 ( dA) E- 1 = cIA,

(28) E,-I( dG)E- 1 = dG,

(29) (dE)E-1 ",,,dW.

Then

(30) cIA = (dW)'F +dF +F(dW),

( 31) dG=dW' +dW.
13.2 THE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 533

The linear transformation from dE, dF to dA, dG is considered as the linear

transformtion from dE. dF to dW, dF with determinant IE-liP = IEI-r>
(because each row of dE is transformed by E- I). followed by the linear
transformation from dW, dF to dA, dG, followed by the linear transformation
from dA, dG to dA = E'(ciA)E. dG = E'(dG)E with determinant IEl p + l •
IEI P + I (from Section 7.3.3); and the determinant Jf the linear transformation
from dE. dF to dA. dG is the product of the determinants of the three
component transformations. The transformation (30). (31) is written in com-
ponents as

dOll = dfl + 2fl c/wiP

. .r .
da =J~ dW}1 + J: dw ll ,
1} I '.I,
(32)
dg ll = 2dwll ,

dg,} = dW)1 + dw,}, i <.J.

The determinant is

dI I
dW II dw,} (i <j) dw,} (i > j)
da jl 1 2F 0 0
(33) dgil 0 21 0 0
da,} (i <j) 0 0 M N
dg,) (i <j) 0 0 1 1

=l~ 2Fl·\M
21 1 ~l =2 P
!M NI,

where

(34) dW 12

o o o : 0
I
1 \
I I

dall' o II : 0 o i 0
---- -- - ,I / , -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
r - '-T-
I
--
da2j o 0 \ -
... 0 J
I
I
I
0
M= I I
I I
I I
o o : 0 to!: I 0
-1- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - ... - --
I 1 I
__________ I
J____ ________ I _ ___ 1f __ _
o 0 \ 0
:
0 IF
: lp-l
534 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTIC ROOTS AND VECfORS

and

(35)

f2 0 : 0 o o
I
1 1
I I

o fp 1 0 o I
: 0
da::: 3
------------,--
o ... 0: f3 ----------r----,----
'" a 0
I

I
I

I
I I
N= . j I
I I
I I
o fp i t
I I
a
---------~----~----
1 1 I
1 _ ____ IL ____ ..lI ___ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___________ L_

da p _
LP
a 0 1 0 0: I
: fp
1

Then

(36) IM-NI = n(fi-ff)'

i </

The determil1ant of the linear transformation (23),(24) is

(37) IEI-PIEI P + 'IEI P + '2 p n (f, -~) = 2 IEI n (fi - ff)·

i <}
P P 2
+
i <1'

Theorem 13.2.1. The Jacobian of the transformation (19) is the absolute

value 0/ (37).

13.2.3. The Joint Distribution of the Matrix E and the Roots

The jl)int density of A and B is

(38) w( A.I/, m) w( BI/, n) C llA\ ~(m-p-l)1 BI !(n-p-l )e- ~tr(A+B),

where

(39)

Therefore the joint density of E and F is

(40) CdE' FEI ~(m-p-' )IE'( 1- F) EI ~(n-p-l)

'e- Jil f E'E2 P I E' EI t<p+2) n

i<f
(fi - f).
13.2 THE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 535

Since IE'FEI = !E'I'IFI-IEI = IFI-IE'EI =nr""I/;IE'EI and IE'(I-F)EI

= 1/- FI-IE'EI = nf"'IO- li)IE'EI. the density of E and F is

( 41)
p
2P CI IE' EI ~(m+n-p )e- ftr E'E nfi"i(m-p-l)
j", 1
n (1 -
p

; .. 1
,
li)'i(n-p-l) n (); .- Ii)'
i<j

Clearly, E and F are statistically independent because the density factors

into a function of E and a function of F_ To detennine the marginal
densities we have only to find the two normalizing constants (the product of
which is 2 P C I ).
Let us evaluate

( 42)

where the integration is 0 < eil < 00, - 00 < e(J < 00, j '* 1_ The value of (42) is
unchanged if we let - 00 < eiI < 00 and multiply by 2- p • Thus (42) is

Except for the constant (2.". )iP\ (43) is a definition of the expectation of the
!(m + n - p)th power of IE' EI when the ejJ have as density the function
within brackets. This expected value is the 4(m + n - p)th moment of the
r,eneralized variance IE' EI when E' E has the distribution W(I, pl. (See
Section 7.5.) Thus (43) is

( 44)

Thus the density of E is

(45)

The density of II is (41) divided by (45); that is, the density of fi is

536 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECTORS

(47)

The density of 1/ is obtained from (46) by letting

Ii
(48) fl = T+T; /

we have
df. 1
dl j = (//+1
I -
(49) I, - jj = (I, + ~) + 1)'
1
1-1,=1+1'
J

Thus the density of 1/ is

p p
(50) CzOWm-p-l)O (II + 1) t(m~n)O (I, -I))
1=1 i=l i<j

Theorem 13.2.2. If A and B are distributed independently according to

W('I, m) and W('I, n) respectively (m ~ p, n ~ p), the joint density of the roots
of IA -IBI = 0 is (50) where C z is defined by (47).

The joint density of Y can be found from (45) and the fact that the
Jacobian is IY1- zP. (See Theorem A.4.6 of the Appendix.)

13.2.4. The Distribution for A Singular

The matrix A above can be represented as A = WIW~, where the columns of
WI (p X m) are independently distributed, each according to N(O, 'I). We
now treat the case of m < p. If we let B + WI W: = G = CC' and WI = CU,
then the roots of

(51) o=! A - f( A + B)! =! WIW; - fG!

= ICUU'C' -fCC'1 = ICI·IUU' -Ppl'ICI
13.2 THE CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 537

are the roots of

(52)

We shall show that the nonzero roots fl > .. , > fm (these roots being distinct
with probability 1) are the roots of

(53)

For each root f =1= 0 of (52) there is a vector x satisfying

(54)

Multiplication by U' on the left gives

(55) 0= U'(UU' - fIp)x

= (U'U - fIm){ U'x).

Thus U' x is a characteristic vector of UU' and f is the corresponding root.

It was shown in Section 8.4 that the density of U = U~ is (for Ip - UU'
positive definite or 1m - i:J * U; positive definite)

where p* = m, n* - p* - 1 = n - p - 1, and m* = p. Thus f1"'" fm must be

distributed according to (46) with p replaced by m, m by p, and n by
n + m - p, that is,

1Ttm2rJ h m + n)]
(57)
rm( ~m)rJ tern + n - p)]rm(~P)
.n [If(p-m-l l(
m

1-1
1 - J,) 1(n-p-l l] n(J, - f).
I~

Theorem 13.2.3. If A is ,tistributed as W1W;, where the m columns of WI

are independent, each distribwed according to N(O, "I), m 5.p, and B is indepen-
dently distributed according to WeI, n), n ~p, then the density of the nonzero
roots of \A - f(A + B)I = 0 is given by (57).

These distributions of roots were found independently and at about the

same time by Fisher (1939), Girshick (1939), Hsu (1939a). Mood (1951), and
Roy (1939). The development of the Jacobian in Section 13.2.2 is due mainly
to Hsu [as reported by Deemer and Olkin (1951)].
538 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECfORS

13.3. THE CASE OF ONE NONSINGULAR WISHART MATRIX

In this section we shall find the distribution of the roots of

(1) IA -lII = 0,
where the matrix A has the distribution W(I, n). It will be obseIVed that th(.
variances of the principal components of a sample of n + 1 from N(JL, I) are
1In times the roots of(I). We shall find the following theorem useful:

Theorem 13.3.1. If the s/mmetric matrix B has a density of the form

g(lt' ... , I), where I( > ... > I p are the characteristic roots of B, then the density
of th e roots is

1T-Wlg(ll,···,lp)O'<l(1,. -11 )
(2)
fpOp)

Proof From Theorem A.2.l of the AppendiK. we know that there exists an
orthogonal matrix C such that

(3) B = C'LC,
where

It 0 0
0 12 0
( 4) L=

0 0 Ip

If the l's are numbered in descending order of magnitude and if Cil ~ 0, then
(with probability 1) the transformation from B to Land C is unique. Let the
matrix C be given the coordinates c I, .. " C p( p_1 )/2' and let the Jacobian of
the transformation be f(L, C). Then the joint density of Land C is
gU I , ... ,I p) f( L, C). To prove the theorem we must show that

~5)

We show this by taking a special case where B = UU' and U (p X m, m ~p)

has the density

( 6)
13.3 THE CASE OF ONE NONSINGULAR WISHART MATRIX 539

~rhen by Lemma 13.3.1, which will be stated below, B has the density

f [l(m + n)]
(7) p ~ ! II ~- BI Hn -p 1)1 BI t(m-p 1)
fp('2m)fp('2n)

f[l(m+n)] p
fl(1-1,r(n- p -nfl 1t(m- p -n
1 P
= f1 ~ !
r;, (2: m) f,) ( 2 n) j - I I '" 1

=g*(i" ... ,lp )'

The joint density of Land C is f(L, C)g*(ll" .. , lp). In the preceding section
we proved that the marginal density of L is (50). Thus

This proves (5) and hence the theorem. •

The statement above (7) is baseJ on the following lemma:

Lemma 13.3.1. If the density of f (p X m) is f(ff'), then the density of

B = fY' is

IBlt(m- p l)f(B)7Twm
(9)
fp(tm)

The proof of this, likc that of Theorem 13.3.1, depends on exhibiting a

special case; let f(ff') = (27T)- ipm e - ~tr YY', then (9) is w(BII, m).

Now let u:., find the dcnsity of the roots of (D. The density of A is

IAI t(n-p-I) e- ttr A _ nr""11t(n -1'- 1) exp( - tEf", 1/()

(10)
2wnfp( tn) - 2tpn fp( ~n)

Thus by the theorem we obtain as the density of the roots of A

(11)
S40 THE DISfRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECTORS

Theorem 13.3.2. If A (p x p) has the distribution W(J, n), then the charac-
teristic roots (II ~ l2 ~ ... ~ l p ~ 0) have the density (11) over the range where
the density is not O.

Corollary 13.3.1. Let VI ~ ••• ~ vp be the sample variances of the sample

principal components of a sample of size N = n + 1 from N(fJ., ( 21). Then
(n/u 2)v( are distributed with density (11).

The characteristic vectors of A are uniquely defined (except for multipli-

cation by -1) with probability 1 by

(12) (A-LI)y=O, y'y = 1,

since the roots are different with probability 1. Let the vectors with Yli ~ 0 be

(13)

Then

(14) AY= YL.

From Section 11.2 we know that

(15) Y'Y=I.

Multplication of (14) on the right by y- 1 = Y' gives

(16) A = YLY'.

Thus Y' = C, defined above.

Now let us consider the joint distribution of Land C. The matrix A has
the distribution of

( 17)

where the XO/ are independently distributed, each according to N(O, I). Let

(18)

where Q is any orthogonal matrix. Then the X: are independently dis-

tributed according to N(O, I) and
n
( 19) A* = E X:X:' = QAQ'
a~l
13.3 THE CASE OF ONE NONSINGlJLAR WISHART MATRIX 541

is distributed according to W(I, n). The roots of A* are the roots of ,4; thus

(20) A* = C**'LC**,
(21) C** 'C** = I

define C* * if we require C71 * ~ O. Let

(22) C* =CQ'.

Let

clJ* 0 0
Icfll
*
C 2l
0 0
(23) J( C*) = Icf11

*
Cl'l
0 0
1e;1 1

with c~/ 1c~1 = 1 if c~ = O. Thus l(C*) is a diagonal matrix; the ith

diagonal element is 1 if c~ ;?: 0 and is - I if c~ < O. Thus

(24) C** =l(C*)C* =l(CQ')CQ'.

The distribution of C** is the same as that of C. We now shall show that
this fact defines the distribution of C.

Definition 13.3.1. If the random orthogonal matrix E of order p has a

distribution such that EQ' has the same distribution for every orthogonal Q, then
E is said to have the Haar invariant distribution (or normalized measure).

The definition is possible because it has been proved that there is only one
distribution with the required invariance property [Halmos 095u)]. It has also
been shown that this distribution is the only one invariant under multiplica-
tion on the left by an orthogonal matrix (i.e., the distribution of QE is the
same as that of E). From this it follows that the probability is 1/2 P that E is
such that e il ;?: O. This can be seen as follows. Let 1 I, ... , 12 p be the 2 p
diagonal matrices with elements + 1 and - 1. Since the distribution of I, E is
the same as that of E, the probability that ell;?: 0 is the same as the
probability that the elements in the first column of I, E are nonnegative.
These events for i = 1, ... , 2 P are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (except
for elements being 0, which have probability 0), and thus the probability of
anyone is 1/2 p.
542 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECfORS

The conditional distribution of E given en ~ 0 is 2 P times the Haar

invariant distrihution over this part of the spac~. We shall call it the
conditional Haar invariant distribution.

Lemma 13.3.2. If the orthogonal matrix E has a distribution such that

ell ~ 0 and if E** =J(EQ')EQ' has the same distribution for every orthogonal
Q. then E has the conditional Haar invariant distribution.

Proof. Let the space V of orthogonal matrices be partitioned into the

subspaces VI'"'" V2P so that JiVE = VI' say, where J[ = I and V[ is the set for
which e II ~ O. Let JLI be the measure in VI defined by the distribution of E
assumed in the lemma. The measure JL(W) of a (measurable) set W in V; is
defined as (l/2 P )JLI(J,W). Now we want to show that JL is the Haar
invariant measure. Let W be any (measurable) set in VI' The lemma assumes
that 2 JlJL(W) = JLI(W) = Pr{E E W} = Pr{E** E W} = L JLlJJWQ' n Vi]) =
2 PJ.t(WQ'). If U is any (measurable) set in V, then U = U ;:I(U n Vj). Since
JL(L' n v) = Cl/2 P )JLI[J/U n V;)], by the above this is JL[(U n ~)Q']. Thus
j.t(U) = JL(UQ'). Thus JL is invariant and JLI is the conditional invariant
distribution. _

From the lemma we see that the matrix C has the conditional Haar
invariant distribution. Since the distribution of C conditional on L is the
same, C and L are independent.

Theorem 13.3.3. If C = yl. where Y = (y l' ... , y p) are the normalized char·
I1cceristic vectors of A with Y II ~ 0 and where A is distributed according te
W([, n), then C has the conditional Haar invariant distribution and C is
distributed independently of the charactelistic roots.

From the preceding work we can generalize Theorem 13.3.1.

Theorem 13.3.4. If the symmetric matrix B has a density of the form

gCl I' ... . 1). where 11 > '" > I P are the characteristic roots of B, then the joint
density of the roots is (2) and the matrix of normalized characteristic vectors Y
(YII ~ 0) is independently distributed according to the conditional Haar invariant
distribution.

Proof. The density of QBQ I . where QQ' = I. is the same as that of B (for
the roots are invariant). and therefore the distribution of J(Y'Q I)Y'Q I is the
same as that of yl. Then Theorem 13.3.4 follows from Lemma 13.3.2. ,.

We shall give an application of this theorem to the case where B = B' is

normally distributed with the (functionally independent) components of B
independent with means 0 and variances $b,~ = 1 and $b~ = ~ Ci <j).
13.4 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS 543

Theorem 13.3.5. Let B = B' have the density

(25)

Then the characteristic roots II > ... > lp of B have the density

and the matrix Y of the normalized characteristic vectors (Yli ~ 0) is indepen-

dently distributed according to the conditional Haar invariant distribution.

Proof Since the characteristic roots 0 f B 2 are I ~ , ... ,I; and tr B 2 = '£1;,
the theorem follows directly. •

Corollary 13.3.2. Let nS be distributed according to W(I, n), and define the
diagonal matrix Land B by S=C'LC, C'C=I, II> '" >lp, and C£l~O,
i = 1, ... , p. Then the density of the limiting distribution of fn- (l, - I) = D
diagonal is (26) with lj replaced by d l , and the matrix C is independently
distributed according to the conditional Haar measure.

Proof The density of the limiting distribution of Iii (S - I) is (25), and the
diagonal elements of D are the characteristic roots of Iii (S - I) and the
columns of C' are the characteristic vectors. •

13.4. CANONICAL CORRELATIONS

The sample canonical correlations were shown In Section 12.3 to be the

square roots of the roots of

(1)

where

N
(2) Aij= 1: (x~I)-i(i))(x~J)-i(f))', i,j=I,2,
a=l

and the distribution of

(3) X
= (X(l))
X(2)
544 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTIC ROOTS AND VECfORS

is N(p., ~), where

(4)

From Section 3.3 we know that the distribution of A lj is the same as that of
n
(5) A lJ = '"
i....J yU)y(j)'
Of a , i,j = 1,2,
asl

where n =N -1 and

( 6) Y
= ( yO)
y(Z)
1
is distributed according to N(O, ~), Let us aSSume that the dimensionality of
yO), say PI' is not greater than the dimensionality of y(2), say PZ' Then there
are PI nonzero roots of (1), say

(7)

Now we l:ihall find the distribution of to when

(8)

For the moment assume {y~Z)} to be fIXed. Then A zz is fixed, and

(9)

is the matrix of regression coefficients of y(l) on y(Z), From Section 4.3 we

know that
n
(to) A ll .z = E (y;l)-BY,!2»)(y;l)-BYo(Z»)'=All-BAzzB'
a-I

and

(ll)

(13 = 0) are independently distributed a.::cording to W(~IP n - pz) and

W(~l1' Pz), respectively. In terms of Q the equation (1) defining f is

( 12) IQ f{All'Z+Q)I-O.
13.5 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN CASE OF ONE WISHART MATRIX 545

The distribution of f.-, i = 1, _.. , PI' is the distribution of the nonzero roots of
(:i2), and the density is given by (see Section 13.2)

(13)

.n
p,

1='
{J.~(PJ-P' -I )(1- J.) 1(f,T-p )-p, - ~)} n Cf, - f;).
Pl

1<.1

Since the conditional density (13) does not depend upon y(2), (13) is the
unconditional density of the squares of the sample canonical correlation
coefficients of the two sets X~l) and X~~), ex = 1, ... , N. The density (13) also
holds when the X(2) are actually fixed variate vectors or have any distribu-
tion, so long as X(1) and X(2) are independently distributed and X(1) has a
multivariate normal distribution.
In the special case when PI = 1, P2 = P - 1, (13) reduces to

(14)

which is the density of the square of the sample multiple correlation coeffi-
cient between X( I) (p I = 1) and X(~) (p~ = p - 1).

13.5. ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CASE OF

ONE WISHART MATRIX

13.5.1. All Population Roots Different

In Section 13.3 we found the density of the diagonal matrix L and the
orthogonal matrix B defined by S=BLB', 112:. .,. 2:.lp, and b l ,2:.0, i=
1, ... , p, when nS is distributed according to W(l, n). In this section we find
the asymptotic distribution of Land B when nS is distributed according to
W(l, n) and the characteristic roots of I are different. (Corollary 13.3.2
gave the asymptotic distribution when I = I,)

Theorem 13.5.1. Suppose nS has the distribution W( I. n). Define diagonal

A and L and orthogonal 13 and B by

(1) I = I3AI3'. S=BLB',

A1 >A 2 >'" >Ap, 1,2:./ 2 2:. ... 2:.lp' (31,2:.0, b" 2:. 0, i=I, ... ,p. Define
G = m(B - 13) and diagonal D = m(L - A). Then the limiting distribution of
546 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS

D and G is nonnal with D and G independent, and the diagonal elements of D

are it1dependelll. The diagonal element d, has the limiting distribution N(O, 2 An.
The covariance matrix of g, in the limiting distn'bution of G == (g (l . . • , g) is

_ ~ A, Ak ,
( 2) ccY0'(g,) - '-.J 2 (3k(3k'
k=l (>..,-A k )
k*,

where p = ((31' ... , (3). The covariance matrix of gj and g} in the limiting
distrihution is

(3)

Proof The matrix nT = n~' Sp is distributed according to W( A, n). Let

(4) T= YLY',

where r i~ orthogonal. In order that (4) determine Y uniquely, we require

:?!: O. Let In. (T - A) = U and
VII rn
(Y - I) = W. Then (4) can be written

(5) A+ ~ U (I + ~ W)( A + In D)( 1+

= In W)'.
which is equivalent to

1 1
(b) U= WA + D + AW' + r (WD + WAW' +DW') + -WDW'.
vn n

From 1= YY' = [I + 01 In)W][1 + OIIn)W'], we have

1
(7) o= W + W' + m WW' ,

We shall proceed heuristically and justify the method later. If we neglect

terms of order 11m and lin (6) and (7), we obtain

(8) U= WA +D + AW',
(9) O=W+W'.

When we substitute W' = - W from (9) into (8) and write the result in
components. we obtain w" = 0,

(10) d,=u", i = I, .. " p,

( 11) i*j, i,j=l, ... ,p.

13.5 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN CASE OF ONE WISHART MATRIX 547

(Note wij = -w,r) From Theorem 3.4.4 we know that in the limiting normal
distribution of U the functionally independent elements are statistically
independent with means 0 and variances dr(uu) = 2A; and d'Y(u ij ) =
*"
A,.Aj , i j. Then the limiting distribution of D and W is normal, and
d 1 , •.• ,dp ,WI2,W13""'wp _ 1,p are independent with means 0 and variances
dr(d,.) = 2A;, i = 1, ... , p, and dr(w,.,) = A;Aj/(Aj - AY, j = i + 1, ... , p,
i = 1, ... , p - 1. Each column of B is ± the corresponding column of pY;
since Y ~ I, we have PY ~ p, and with arbitrarily high probability each
column of B is nearly identical to the corresponding column of pY. Then
G = /n (B - P) has the limiting distribution of P/n (Y - I) = pW. The
asymptotic variances and covariances follow.
Now we justify the limiting distribution of D and W. The equations
T = YLY' and I = IT' and conditions 11> ... > Ip, Yil> 0, i = 1, ... , p, define
a 1-1 transformation of T to Y, L except for a set of measure O. The
transformation from Y, L to T is continuously differentiable. The inverse is
continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of Y = I and L = A, since the
equations (8) and (9) can be solved uniquely. Hence Y, L as a function of T
satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.2.3. •

13.5.2. One Root of Higher Multiplicity

In Section 11.7.3 we used the asymptotic distribution of the q smallest
sample roots when the q smallest population roots are equal. We shall now
derive that distribution. Let

(12)

where the diagonal elements of the diagonal matrix A I are different and are
larger than A* (> 0). Let

( 13)

Then T ~ A, which implies L ~ A, Yu ~ I, Y12 ~ 0, Y21 ~ 0, but Y22 does

not have a probability limit. However, Y22 Y~ ~ I q • Let the singular value
decomposition of Y22 be EJF, where J is diagonal and E and Fare
orthogonal. Define C2 = EF, which is orthogonal. Let U = /n (I - A) and
D = /n (L - A) be partitioned similarly to T and L. Define WI! =
/n(Y lI -I), WI2 = /nY I2 , W21 = /nY21 , and W22 = /n(Y22 = C2 ) = /nE(J-
548 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECfORS

Iq)F. Then (4) can be written

( 14) (~' o
A* Iq
1+ Iii1 (U"
U21
UIZ )
Un

= [(\' C2
o 1+ Iii
1 (W"
W21 WI2) 1
W22

.[( ~' 0) + Iii1 (D'0

A* Iq ;,)1
.w p
;,
o 1+1- (W!'
I
C2 .r,:; W12 I
w~ 11
W22

= (~' A*Iq
1 [(D'0
0) + Iii c,;,c; 1
+(WIIA' A*W C; 1 (A'W!'
12 A,W;, )1+ riM,
1
W21 A 1 A*W C; + A*C W
22 2 12
A*C2W~

where the submatrices of M are sums of products of C2, A I' A*Iq' Dk , Wkl ,
and 1/ Iii. The orthogonality of Y Up = YY') implies

where the submatrices of N are sums of products of Wkl • From (4) and (15)
we find that

( 16)

The limiting distribution of O/A*)U22 has the density (25) of Section 13.3
with p replaced by q. Then the limiti ng distribution of D2 and C2 is the
distribution of Di and Y2~ defined by Uti = Y22 Di Y:z2' , where (1/ A* )Ui2 has
the density (25) of Section 13.3.
13.6 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 549

Theorem 13.5.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 13.5.1 and A =

diag( A l' A*I q)' the density of the limiting distribution of d p _q + I ' ... ) d p is

(17) 2-~q(A*1T)q(q-I)/4r;~Op)expl'- 2~* t

I="p-q+l
d~ln(d,-dJ.
I<J

To justify the preceding derivation we note that D z and Y22 are functions
of U depending on n that converge to the solution of U~ = Y2i Di2 Y~i'. We
can use the following theorem given by Anderson (1963a) and due to Rubin.

Theorem 13.5.3. Let F,lu) be the cumulative distribution function of a

random matrix Un- Let ~ be a matrix-valued function of Un) ~ = fn(u n), and
Let Gn(v) be the (induced) dl'.)tribution of~. Suppose Fn(u) -+ F(u) in every
continuity point of F(u), ana suppose for every continuity point u of feu),
fn(u n) -+ f(u) when un -+ u. Let G(v) be the distribution of the random matrix
V = f(U), where U has the distribution F(u) If the probability of the set of
discontinuities of f(u) according to F(u) is 0, then

(18) lim Gn ( v) = G( v)
n-+oo

in every continuity point of G(v).

The details of verifying that U( n) and

(19)

satisfy the conditions of the theorem have been given by Anderson (1963a).

13.6. ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CASE OF

'IWO WISHART MATRICES

13.6.1. All Population Roots Different

In Section 13.2 we studied the distributions of the roots II ~ 12 ~ .. ' ~ Ip of

(1) IS* -IT* I = 0

~nd the vectors satisfying

(2) (S* -IT* )x* = 0

550 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECTORS

and x* 'T* x* = 1 when A* = 'flS* and B* = nT* are distri~uted indepen-

dently according to WeI, m) and WeI, n), respectively. In this section we
study the asymptotic distributions of the roots and vectors as n -+ 00 when A*
and B* are distributed independently according to W( «1>, m) and WeI, n),
respectively, and mjn -+ 7J> O. We shall assume that the roots of

(3) I«I>-AII=O

are distinct. (In Section 13.2 Al = •.. = Ap = 1.)

Theorem 13.6.1. Let mS* and nT* be independently distributed according
to W(<<I>, m) and WeI, n), respectively. Let AI> A2 > ... > Ap (> 0) be tire
roots of (3), and let A be the diagonal matrix with the roots as diagonal elements
in descending order; let "I [, ... , "I p be the solutions to

( 4) i=l, ... ,p,

"1'1"1 = 1, and I'll ~ 0, and let r = ('YI>"" 'Y p )' Letl l ~ ••• ~ lp (> 0) be the
roots of (1), and let L be the diagonal matrix with the roots as diagonal elements
in descending order; let xi, ... ,x; be the solutions to (2) for I = I;, i = 1, ... , p,
x* 'T* x* = 1, and xi,. > 0, and let X* = (xi, . .. , x;). Define Z* = in (X* - r)
and diagonal D = Iii (L - A). Then the limiting distn'bution of D and Z* is
nonnal with means 0 as n -+ 00, m -+ 00, and mjn -+ 7J (> 0). The asymptotic
variances and covariances that are not 0 are

(5)

(6)

(7) ,r;;1tff( d;, zi) = A;'Y;,

(8) i =1= j.

Proof Let
(9) S= r's*r, T= r'T*r.
Then mS and nT are distributed independently according to W( A, m) and
W(J, n), respectively (Section 7.3.3). Then 11"'" lp are the roots of

( 10) IS -ITI = O.
13.6 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 551

Let XI"'" X p be the solutions to

( 11) (S-I,T)x=O, i=I, ... ,p,

and x'Tx = 1, and let X= (XI"'" x p ), Then xi = fx, and X* = f X except

possibly for multiplication of columns of X (or X*) by - 1. If Z = ,;n (X -I),
then Z* = fZ (except possibly for mUltiplication of columns by -1).
We shall now find the limiting distribution of D and Z. Let ,;n(S - A) = U
and ,;n(T - I) = V. Then U and V have independent limiting normal distri-
butions with means O. The functionally independent elements of U and V are
s.tatistically independent in the limiting distribution. The variances are GU:i
~ 2( n lm)A: ~ 2A: IT}; GU:J = (J1 Im)A, AJ ~ A, A/T}, i :1= j; Gv~ = 2; G v~ = 1,
i *j.
From the definition of L and X we have SX = TXL, X'1'X = I, and
X'SX=/..,:If we let X-I = G, we obtain

(12) S=G'LG, T=G'G.

We require gil > 0, i = 1, ... , p. Since S ~ A and T ~ I, we have L ~ A and

G ~ I. Let ,;n (G - I) = H. Then we write (12) as

(13) A= _1_U
in
= (I + _I_HI) (A + _I_D) (I + _I_H),
in in in
(14) 1+ ~V=(/+ ~H')(/+ ~H).
These can be rewritten

1 1
(15) U=D+AH+H'A+ r(DH+H'D+H'AH) + -H"1)H,
yn n

(16) V=H+H'+ ~H'H.

If we neglect the termS of order 1/,;n and 1In (as in Section 13.5), we
can write

(17) U=D+AH+H'A,
( 18) V=H+H ' ,
(19) U - VA = D + A H - H A.
552 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS

The diagonal elements of (18) and the components of (19) are

(20)
(21)

(22)

The limiting distribution of Hand D is normal with means O. The pairs

(h ij , h ji) of off-diagonal elements of H are independent with variances

(23) i :1= j,

and covariances

(24) i:1= j.

The pairs (d" hit) of diagonal elements of D and H are independent with
variances (5),

(25)

and covariance

(26)

The diagonal elements of D and H are independent of the off-diagonal

elemeuts of H.
That the limiting distribution of D and H is normal is justified by
Tt.eorem 4.2.3. Sand T are polynomials in Land G, and their derivatives
are polynomials and hence continuous. Since the equations (12) with auxiliary
conditions can be solved uniquely for Land G, the inverse function is also
continuously differentiable at L = A and G = I. By Theorem 4.2.3,
D = lln(L - A) and H = in (G -I) have a limiting normal distribution. In
turn, X = G- is continuously differentiable at G = I, and Z = Iii (X I)
l

= Iii (G- - I) has the limiting distribution of - H. (Expand Iii {[I +

1

(1/ Iii)H]-l -I}.) Since G ~ I, X ~ I, and xli> 0, i = 1, ... , p with proba-

bility approaching 1. Then Z* = Iii (X* - r) has the limiting distribution of
rz. (Since X ~ /, we have X* = X ~r r and Xli> 0, i = 1, .... p, with
probability approaching 1.) The asymptotic variances and covariances (6) to
(8) are ohtained from (23) to (26). •
13.6 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN CASE OF TWO WISHART MATRICES 553

Anderson (t989b), has derived the limiting distribution of the characteris-

tic roots and vectors of one sample covariance matrix in the metric of another
with population roots of arbitrary multiplicities.

13.6.2. One Root of Higher Multiplicity

In Section 13.6.1 it was assumed that mS* and nT* were distributed
mdependently according to W( eft, m) and W(~, n), respectively, and that the
roots of left - A~l = 0 were distinct. In this section we assume that the k
larger roots are distinct and greater than the p k smaller roots, which arc
assumed equal, Let the diagonal matrix A of characteristic roots be A =
diagCA 1, A*lp_k)' and let r be a matrix satisfying

(27) r/~r=l.

Define Sand T by (9) and diagonal Land G by (12). Then S ~ A, T 41/"

and L!... A. Pdrtition S, T, L, and G as

(28)

p p p
where Sw Til' L 1 , and GIl are k X k. Then G ll -+ lk' G 12 -+ 0, and G:!l - O.
but G 22 does not have a probability limit. Instead G~2G::'2 ~ lp_k' Let the
singular value decomposition of G 22 be EJF, where E and F are orthogonal
and J is diagonal. Let C z EF.
The limiting distribution of U fii(S - A) and V= fii(T - J) is normal
with the covariance structure given above (12) with Ak + I = .. , :. AI' = A*.
Define D = fii (L - A), H11 fii (GIl - I), H lz = In G}2, H:'I = /11 G:: 1• and
H22 = fii(G zz - Cz) = fiiE(J -1p-k)F. Then (13) and (15) are replaced by

(29) AOI
[

o
= l
1 I

fii H IZ o A* lp_'
• + -;::=::-
vn D~-
554 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACTERIST!CROOTS AND VE.CroRS

(
CH~I
Vt1

and (14) and (16) are replaced by

(30)
[~ o
Ip - k
1+ 1
In
[V"V21 VIOl
v"

1+
Vtl
J- H;1 1
InH'21
I 1
1+ In HII
1
rn H12
=
1 , 1 1
C2 + rn H22
r:; Hl~ C'
'2
1 H'22
+ r;; ,r,; H21
\tl t1 t1

.. [! o 1+ r;;I [H"H21 C~H"B- 1+,r,;I [HI, H;, 1+ -H

HI
1 ,
H. C
Ip-k Hiz n
2:, 22 2

If We neglect the terms of order 11m and liN, instead of (11) we can write

UI'2 - A* V12 1 [DI +

= AIHII - HII AI (A*I-A I )H I2 C 2]
Un - A* V2:! C~H21( A* 1- VI) C~D2C2

Then vlI =2h ll , i=1, ... ,k; Li,,-\v,,=d l , i=1, ... ,k; ur,-v;,A j =
(AI - A,)h l ), i =1= j, i, j = 1, ... , k; U22 - A* V22 = C~D2C2; CzCU21 - V21 AI) =
H21(A~'I-Al); and (UI2-A*VI2)C;=(A*I-AI)HI2' The limiting distri-
buti~n of U22 - A* V22 is normal with mean 0; cS'(u" - A* v;Y = $d~ =
2A*-0 + 7])/7], i = k + 1, ... , p; and (f-(u i ) - A* V lj )2 = A*2(1 + 7])/7], i =1= j,
i. j = k + 1, ... , p. The limiting distribution of D ~ and C2 is the distribw ion
of D2 and C 2 defined by U22 - A* V 22 = C~D2C2 where 01 A* )(U22 - V22 ) has
the d~nsity of (25) of Sectio 11 13.3.
13.7 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION IN A REGRESSION MODEL 555

13.7. ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION IN A REGRESSION MODEL

13.7.1. Both Sets of Variates Stochastic

The sample canonical correlations I), ... , I P2 and vectors eX), •.• , eX PI' and
"Yl, .•• ,"Y P2
are defined in Section 12.3. The set "Yl, ... ,"YP2 and I I , ... ,l p2 are
defined by

(1 ) --IS
SZI S11 A S Al2
12 "I = 22 "I , "IAIS22"1
A
=
1
.

The asymptotic distribution of these quantities was given by Anderson

(1999a) when X = (X(I)I, X(2) ')I h~s a normal distribution and also when X(l)
is normally distributed with a linear function of nonstochastic X(2) as
expected value. We shall now find the asymptotic distribution wh'!n X tlas a
normal distribution. The model in regression form is

(2) x(l) = I3X(Z) + Z,

where X':Z) and Z are independently normally distributed with expected

values GX(Z) = 0 and $Z = 0 and covariances $ XlZ)X lZ ) = I 22 , $ZZ' = I zz
(G XlZ)Z I = 0), Then $ XlI) = 0 and $ X(I) X(l) I = III = I zz + PIzzP I and
$X(l)X(Z)1 = pI 22 • Inference is based on a sample of X of n observations.
First we transform to canonical variables U = A I X(I), V = r J X(2), and
W = A I Z. Then (I) is transformed to

(3) U=@V+W,

where @=A1p(r')-l, f!UU = Iuu =lpl ' ,RW' Ivv =lp1 ' GUV' = Iuv
1

1
= (t\, 0) = t\, $WW = Iww = Ipi - t\z, and $VW' = O. [See (33) to (37)
and (45) of Section 12.2.] Let the sample covariance matrices be Suu =
A'SuA', SUI< = A'Sur, and Svv= rJszzr. Let the sample vectors consti-
tute H = r- I f' = r-I(.y I""'.y p). Then H satisfies

(4)

(5) HIZ]
H zz '
556 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECfORS

where Hil is PI XPL and H22 is (P2-PI)X(P2-PI)' The first PI columns

ot (4) are

(6)

the last P2 - PI columns of (4) are SUVH2 = 0. Then Hll ~/pl' H12 ~ 0, and
H2I ~ 0, but the probability limit of (4) only implies H~2H22 ~/p2-PI' Let
the singular value decomposition of H22 be H22 = EJF.
Define SUu = m(Suu -Ip), Stv = m(Svv - lp2 )' SUv= mCSuv - A),
H:=m(HI-/(PI)' and A*=[m(A-A),O], where I(PI)=Up1'0)'. Then
expansion of (6) yields

(7) (A' + )" stu )( Ip, + }" Suu r' (A + )" stv )( I,p,) + }" Ht 1
~ (I" + )" stv )( I,,,) + }" Ht )( A + ~ A' r
From (7) we obtain

(8) StuA/(PI) - A/SuuA/(PI) + A/Stvl(PI) + A/ AHi

= stvl(PI) A2 + HiA2 + 2/(PI) A A* + 0/1)

(9)

In terms of partitioned matrices (8) is

(10)

The lower submatrix equation [( P2 - PI) X P d of (10) is

13.7 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION IN A REGRESSION MODEL 557

A diagonal element of the upper submatrix equation of (10) is

The right-hand side of (2) is the expansion of the sample correlation

coefficient of Ula and via' See Section 4.2.3. The limiting distribution of A; is
N[O,(1 - A7)2].
The G, nth component of H~ in (10) is

(13)

( A~ - A7)h;j = ha~l n
( AjV,auja + A,u,avja - A, \u,aUja - A7 V,aVja) + 0,,( 1).

i=l=j i.j= 1. ... 'PI.

The asymptotic covariance of (A~ - A~ )h;j and (A~ - A; )hj, is

(1-- A;)( A~ + A~ - 2A~An

(14)
[ (1 - A~)(l - A;) ( A~ + An

The pair (h,> h~) is uncorrel~ted with other pairs.

Suppose Pl=P2' Then r*=fHtl=fH*. Let f=('YI""''Y pl ), f=
(.y 1'''''.yP ). Then .y: = L;;, l'Yih;j' where hi), i =1= j, is obtained from (13) and
hi; from (9). We obtain

( 1 - A2)(1- A2)(Al + A7.)

A )( A ) ' 1 ,
(16) (iJ (
nf!' 'Yj-'Y j "'11-1', =
j
(7 'j
,)2
A- - A-
'Y/'Yr j=l=L
j I

Anderson (1999a), has also given the asymptotic covariances of a j and of lit)
and a l • Note that hij depends linearly on (u ra ' V, a> and that the pairs
(U'-a' Via) and (U ja , vja ), i =1= j, are uncorrelated. The covariances (14) do not
depend on (U, V) being normal.
Now suppose that the rank of f1:? is k < Pl' Define HI = (Hi 1_ H;I)' as
tbe first k columns of H satisfying (4), and define AI = diag( AI"'" A~).
Then HI satisfies (6), and Ht satisfies (8), (9), (10), and (1). Then A;' is
given by (12) for i = 1, ... , k.
558 1 HE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTIC ROOTS AND VECfORS

The last PI - k columns of (4) are

Hence

13.7.2. One Set of Variates Stochastic and the Other Set Nonstochastic
Now consider the case that X(2) in (2) is nonstochastic, where J.·Za; = 0 and
,{ZIXZ~ = I zz. We observe X =X 1..... xII" We aSSUme

( 19)

and 1.:". is nonsingular. Then

1 1/
(20) SII = n [, x~')x~I), = I3S2213 + SZ213' + I3S2z + Szz ~ I3I2213' + I zz ,
IX'"'I

Define A, ex, and 'Y by solutions to

-A(Izz + I3S2213')
~22)
( S2213
( 23)

We shall first assume PI = pz and At> ... '> ApI> O. Then (22) and (23)
and a" > 0 define

Let U NnX(l" t'a=r~xa. a=l, ... ,n, W=N.,Z, @ NIII3(r~)-I""A,

H = r,/ I r.
Then H and A. satisfy (4). Then SVI) = T,

(25)

(26)
13.7 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION IN A REGRESSION MODEL 559

Then (4) can be written

2 )-1 "2
(27) ( A + S v w) ( A + A S v w + Sw v A + S w w ( A + Sw v ) H = H A .

Note that Svw ~ 0, Sww ~ I - A2 , and hence H ~ I, A.!!..:. A.

Let stw= msvw's~w= m[Sww- u-
A2 )]. Then (27) leads to

(28) ( I - A2)S*vw A + AS*wv (I - A2) - AS*ww A + A2H*

A diagonal term of (28) gives

Since

(30) ~(V,aW'<r)2 = V,20 (1- An,

(31) £'[ w?a - (1 - An]2 = 2(1 - An 2
under the assumption that W is normally distributed, the limiting distribution
of m
(A, - A,) is N[O, (1 - A;)2(1 - -} A;)]. Note that this variance is smaller
than in the case of X(2) stochastic.
From (28) we find

(32)

(AJ - A;)h;j = ~
vn
t [(1 -
a=1
Anv,.awja\ + A,.wia vja (l - An - AiW,aWjaAj]

Then

The equation H'SvvH =1 implies H'H=I, leading to H* = -H*' + 0/1),

that is, hi} = - hj,. + opel).
Now suppose that the rank of 13 is k < P I = P2' Then A = diag( A 1,0),
where A I = diag( AI"" Ak ). Let f = (f I' f 2)' where fl has k columns and
f 2 has PI - k columns. Define the partition (5) to be made into k and PI - k
rows and columns. The probability limit of (4) implies Hu .!!..:. Ib Hl2 ~ 0,
H 21 ~ 0, and H~2 H 22 ~ I. Let the singular value decomposition of H 22 be
560 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECfORS

EJF, where J is a diagonal matrix of order PI - k and E and Fare

orthogonal matrices of order PI - k. Define C2 = EF. The expansion of (4)
in terms of Stw= fii(Svw- A), S~v= fii(s&v- A), S~w:= fii[Sww-
(I - A2 )], H;} = fii(Hu - I), Ht2 = fiiH I2 , HiI = fiiHzr, and Hiz
fii (H22 - C 2) = fii E(J - I)F yields

(34)

The ith diagonal term of (34) is (29) for i = 1, ... , k. The i, jth element of the
upper left-hand submatrix is (32) for i =F j and i, j = ] k. Two other
J" .,

submatrix equations of (34) are

(35) A)Hi2 = -S~!~C2 +0,,(1),

(36) Hi) AI = St~ + o{l(l).

The equation I = H' Svv H = H' H yields

(37)
H~ + Hti
[ C2H~ +Hiz'
Hiz + HiJ 'C2
CH* H*'C =O+Op(l).
1
2 22 + 22 2

The off-diagonal submatrices of (37) agree with (35) and (36).

13.7.3. Reduced Rank Regression Estimator

When the rank of 13 is specified to be k « PI)' the maximum likelihood
estimator of Il is

(38)

See Section 12.7, In terms of (3) the reduced-rank regression estimator of @

is

(39)

Suppose X(2) is stochastic and @ = diar,(0 p 0) = diag( AbO). We define

0: = fii(0 k 0), Hi = fii(H 1 -l{k), S&v - fii(Suv A), and Stv
= fii (Svv - I). From H~SvvHl = I we find .'lfl + HiI ' = St~l + 0/1).
13.7 ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION IN A REGRESSION MODEL 561

From (39) and (9) we obtain

(40)
A

0*-
k-
(suv + A S*21
(Ht1 + Htn
I

uv
S*ll S*12)
wv wv
- ( S*21 o +op(l).
wv

We can compare Elk with the maximum likelihood estimator unrestricted by

a rank condition 0 = SuvSv~. Then

( 41)

since Svv ~ I. The effect of the rank restriction is to replace the lower
right-hand submatrix of SWv by 0 (the parameter value).
Since S~ v = (l/!nrr.:. 1Wa V~, we have vec Sw v = (1/";-; n:::~ = I (V, ® Wa )·
Because Vcr and W" are independent,

(42) rC vec S~v(vec SWv)'

= rCw' ® cS'WW' = I ® (I - A2) = diag(I - Ai., ... , 1- Al).
where A = diag(A 1,0) and 1- A2 = diag(I - A21 , I). On the other hand

(43) A 1 n [
. r '-.J Wa V(l)'
vec€>*k =vec-" a ,
( W(a 1)
0
1 1+0 (1)
V(2),
a p
'In a~l

where Va = (V(l),
a'a
V(2),), and W
a
= (W(l)'
cr'U·
W(2),), Then

( 44)
o
IP
~
-10 ® [ Ik-A~
0

= diag(Ip, - A2" .. , Ip , - A2 , Ik - A."!I'O ..... II. - A:!I' O)

where there are k blocks of lp, - A2 and PI - k blocks of diag(lk - A.:!I' 0)

 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VECTORS

In the original coordinate system

( 45) vee ( Bk - p) = vec [ ( A I ) - , ( 0 k - @)r']

= [ r ® ( A') -1] vec( 0 - @)
= (r1 ,r2 ) ®I zz (AI'A 2 ){I-A2 )-I]vee(0-0).
From (44) and (45) we obtain

(46) ttfveen(Bk-p)[vee(Bk-p)]t

- [(r,rj) ® !zzA(Ip - A2fl]

+ (r;!r; ®'IzzA ,(Ik - A2 ,r A', Izz]
l

(
=[r,r;®I zz ]+ [r2r;®IzzA,lk Al2)-' A',I zz ]

lfwe define 0 = Ivxr, = IzzAI A1(I - A2,)-1 and 0 = r" then p = 00'.
We have

(47) o(O'Iziof IO ' = I zz - I zz A2 A'2 I ZZ'

(48) O(O'IxxO) -, 0' = rjri = Ix~ - r 2 ri·

Thus (46) can be written

(49) /' vee HZ (vee Bk)' - Iii ® I zz - [Ix~ - O(O'IxxO) -10']

®(Izz - o( O'IziO ) -I 0'].

Theorem 13.7.1. Let (X(')',X(2),)" a= 1, ... ,n, be observations on the

random vector XIl' with mean 0 and covariance matrix I. Let t:' = I 12 Ii}. Let
the columns of fl satisfy (1) and -V,,> O. Suppose that X(l) - PX(2) = Z is
independent of X(2). Then the limiting distribution of vee B% = ..;n vec(Bk - P),
with BA = SI2 flfi, is nomzal with mean 0 and couariance matrix (46) or (49).

Note that p = 00' = OM'(OM- I ), for arbitrary nonsingular M; how~

ever, (47) and (48) are invariant with respect to the transforrr ation 0 - Olll
and 0 - OM-I. Thus (49) holds for any factorization p = 00'.
13.8 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 563

The limiting distribution of B:

only depends on ,;n SZ2Si2[ =
(A')-[S;t.vsv~r' and hence holds under the same conditions as the asymp-
totic normality of the least syuares estimator B.
Now suppose that X~2) = X~2), a = 1, ... , n, is nonstochastic and that (19)
holds. The model is (2); in the transformed coordinates [U = A'nx(l), va =
r~x~21, W= ~nZ, e = A'np(r~)-I = A] the model is (3). HI = r-[r l satis-
fies (34) and (37). Again (39) holds. Further, (42) and (43) hold with Va = Va
nonstochastic.

Corollary 13.7.1. xi
Let 2), •.. , X~2) be a set of vectors such that (19) holds.
L e t xa(I) -- Q........a(2) + Za' a -- 1, ... , n, were
h za lS. an 0 bserva t'tOn on a ran dom
vector Z with rfZ = 0 and rfZZ' = I zz . Suppose 13 has rank k. Then the
limiting distribution of ,;nvec(Bk - 13) is normal with mean 0 and covariance
(46) or (49).

13.8. ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS

13.8.1. Observations Elliptically Contoured

Let x[, ... ,XN be N observations on a random vector X with density

(1 ) 1'111- 1g [( x - v)' '11 -I (x - v)] ,

where '11 is a positive definite matrix, R2 = (x - v)'W-I(x - v), and

rfR2 < co. Define K = P rfR 4 /[( rfR2)2(p + 2)] - 1. Then rfX = v and =,.,.
2
rf(X - vXX - v)' = (rfR /p)W:..:: I. Define i and S as the sample mean
and covariance matrix. Define the orthogonal matrices 13 and B r.nd the
diagonal matrices A and L by

(2) I = PAP', S=BLB',

A[ > '" > Ap, II > ". > Ip, (3il ~ 0, b,-[ ~ 0, i = 1, .. . ,p. As in Section 13.5.1,
define T = 13' Sp = YLY', whe re Y = 13' B is orthogonal and Yil ~ O. Then
rfT = p'IP = A.
The limiting covariances of /Nvec(S - I) and /Nvec(T - A) are

(3) lim N rf vec( S - I) Ivec( S - I)]'

N-+OO

= ( K + 1)( I p2 + K p p) ( I ® I) + K vec I (vec I ) , ,

( 4) lim N rf vec( T - A)[ vec( T - A)]'
N-+OO
564 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS

In terms of components $t" = A, OIl' and

(5)

Let m(r - A) = U, !N(L - A) = D, and !N(Y -lp) = W. The set

uJJ, ••• ,u pp are asymptotically independent of the set (UI2, •.• ,Up-J.p); the
covariances u ij ' i =1= j, are mutually independent with variances (K + 1) A, Aj ;
the variance of uii=d j converges to (3K+2)A7; the covariance of ui,=d l
and u kk = db i =1= k, converges to KA,.A k • The limiting distribution of wij , i =1= j,
is the limiting distribution of uij/(Aj - A). Thus the w,)' i <j, are asymptoti-
cally mutually independent with $Wi~ = (K + 1)A,.A,/(A, - Aj)2. These vari-
ances and covariances for the normal case hold for K = O.

Theorem 13.S.1. Define diagonal A and L and orthogonal 13 and B by (2),

AI > ... > Ap, I} > .. , > Ip, {3!l ~ 0, b,} ~ 0, i = 1, ... , p. Define G = !N(B-
13) and diagonal D = !N (L - A). Then the limiting distribution of G and D is
normal with G and D independent. The variance of d j is (2 + 3 K) Af, and the
covariance of d; and d k is KAjAk' The covariance of gj is

(6)

The covariance matrix of gj and gj is

(7)

Proof The proof is the same as for Theorem 13.5.1 except that (4) is used
instead of (4) with K = O. •

In Section 11.7.3 we used the asymptotic distribution of the smallest q

sample roots when the smallest q population roots are equal. Let A =
diag( A I' A* lq), where the diagonal elements of (diagonal) A 1 are different
and are larger than A*. As before, let U = m(r - A), and let U22 be the
lower right#hand q X q submatrix of U. Let D2 and Y22 be the lower
right-hand q X q submatrices of D and Y. It was shown in Section 13.5.2 that
U22 = Y22 D2 Y~2 + 0/1).
13.8 ELLIPTICALLY CONTOURED DISTRIBUTIONS 565

The criterion for testing the null hypothesis Ap _ q+ I = ... = A" is

(8)

In Section 11.7.3 it was shown that - N times the logarithm of (8) has the
limiting distribution of

= 1 [2
--;z Ep u;," + EP u,~1 - -1 (P E U/I
) -] .
2A i=p-lJ,+l '=p-q+ I q '=p-q-..I
, <)

The term Li < ,U;j has the limiting distribution of (1 + K) A* ~Xq'!.(q _ I) /~. The
limiting distribution of (u p _ q _1. p_q+ I " ' " U PP ) is normal with mean 0 and
covariance matrix A*2[2(1 + K)lq + KEE']A*2. The limiting distribution of
[LU~i - (LUji)2 Iq ]A*2 is 2(1 + K)A*2Xq'2_ I • Hence, the limiting distribution of
(9) is the distribution of (1 + K) X;(q + I) /2-1 .
We are also interested in the characteristic roots and vectors or one
covariance matrix in the metric of another covariance matrix.

Theorem 13.8.2. Let S* be the sample covariance malrix of (/ sample of si::e

M from (1), and let T* be the sample covariance malrix of a sample of size N
from (1) with 'I' replaced by I. Lel A be the diagonal malrix wilh '\1 > ." > A"
(> 0) as the diagonal elements, where AI"'" Ap ar! the roots of 1'1'- AI I = O.
Let f=(')'I""'')'p) be the malrix wilh ,)" the solution of ('I'-A,I),),=O,
')" I,), = 1, and ')' I, ~ O. Lel X* = (xi, ... , x;) and diagonal L * consiSl of lhe
solutions to

(10) (S* - IT* ) x* = 0,

x* 'T*x* = 1, andxi ~ O. As !If ~ co, N ~ co, MIN ~ TJ, the limilingdistnbu-
tion of Z* = IN(x* - f) and diagonal D* = IFi(L - A) is normal with the
following covariances:

(11)

(12)
566 THE DISTRIBl.JTIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS

( 13)
~ 7'1

I' d 2+3K
(I-t} .(Y('( 1':1)= J \"1,.

(15) i =1= j,

(16)

Proof Transform S* and T~ to S = r' S* rand T = r 'T* r, <l> and l:

to A=o=r'<l>r and I=r'Ir, and X* to x=r-1x*=G- 1. Let D=
/N(L - A), H= !N(G - n. U = /N(S - A), and V= !NCT-I). Tte
matrices U and V and D and H have limiting normal distributions; they are
rdated by (10), (21). and (22) of Section 13.6. From there and the covariances
of the limiting distributions we derive (11) to (16). •

13.8.2. Ellipdcally Contoured Matrix Distributions

Let }' (p X N) have the density g(tr YY'). Then A = YY' has the density
(Lemma 13.3.1)

( 17)

Let A = BLB', where L is di<lgonal with diagonal clements II > ... > I" and
B is onhogon,lI with bll ~ O. Since g(tr A) = gO:::[~ II), the density of II"'" lp
is (Theorem 13.3.4)

7T~P: g( '[,['= I II) TIl < J (( - I])

(1 ~)
I~( ~p)

and the matrix B is independently distributed according to the conditional

Haar invariant distribution.
Suppose Y* (p x m) and Z* (p X n) have the density

(m,n>p).

Let C be a m,mix such that C'lfC' = I. Then Y = CY* and Z = CZ* have
the density g[tr( Y Y' + ZZ')]' Let A* = y* y* " B* = Z* Z* " A = YY', and
B = ZZ'. The roots of IA* -IB* I = 0 are the roots of (A -IBI = O. Let the
PROBLEMS 567

roots of IA - f(A + B)I = 0 be fl > ... > fp, and let F = diag(f1,···, f p)'
Define E (p X p) by A + B = E' E, and A = E' FE, and eil ~ 0, i = 1, ... , p.

Theorem 13.8.3. The matrices E and F are independent. The densit) of F is

( 19)

the density of E is

(20)

In the development in Section 13.2 the observations Y, Z have the density

and in Section 13.7 g[tr(Y'Y + Z 'Z)] = g[tr(A + B)]. The distribution of the
roots does not depend on the form of gO; the distribution of E depends
only on E' E = A + B. The algebra in Section 13.2 carries over to this more
general case.

PROBLEMS

13.1. (Sec. 1.1.2) Prove Theorem 13.2.1 for p = 2 hy calculating the Jacobian
directly.

13.2. (Sec. 13.2) Prove Theorem 13.3.2 for p = 2 directly by representing the
orthogonal matrix C in terms of the cosine and sine of an angle.

13.3. (Sec. 13.2) Consider the distribution of the roots of IA -IBI = 0 when A and
B are of order two and are distributed according to WCI, m) and WCI, n),
respectively.

(a) Find the distribution of the larger root.

(b) Find the distribution of the smaller root.
(c) Find the distribution of the sum of the roots.

13.4. (Sec. 13.2) Prove that the Jacobian 1 a(G, A)/ aCE, F)I is nUl -~) times a
function of E by showing that the Jacobian vanishes for f, = It
and that its
degree in f,. is the same as that of n(f, - ~).

13.5. (Sec. 13.3) Give the Haar invariant distribution explicitly for the 2 x 2 orthog-
onal matrix represented in terms of the cosine and sine of an angle.
568 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHARACl ERISTICROOTS AND VEcrORS

13.6. (Sec. 13.3) Let A and B be distributed according to weI, m) and weI, n)
respectively. Let 11> '" :> Ip be the roots of IA -IBI = 0 and m 1 > ... > mp
be the roots of IA - mIl = O. Find the distribution of the m's from that of the
I's by letting n - t 00.

13.7. (Sec. 13.3) Prove Lemma 13.3.1 in as much detail as Theorem 13.3.1.

13.8. Let A be distributed according to WeI, n). In case of p = 2 find the distribu-
tion of the characteristic roots of A. [Hint: Transform so that I goes into a
diagonal matrix.]

13.9. From the result in Problem 13.6 find the di!'tribution of the sphericity criterion
(when the null hypothesi!; is not true).

13.10. (Sec. 13.3) Show that X (p x n) has the density ix(X' X) if and only if T has
the density

where T is the lower triangular matrix with positive diagonal elements such
that TT' =X' X. [Srivastava and Khatri (1979)]. [Hint: Compare Lemma 13.3.1
with Corollary 7.2.1.]

13.11. (Sec. 13.5.2) In the ca<;e that the covariance matrix is (t 2) find the limiting
distribution of D I , WII , W12 , and W21 •

13.12. (Sec. 13.3) Prove (6) of Section 12.4.

CHAPTER 14

Factor Analysis

14.1. INTRODUCTION

Factor analysis is based Oil a model in which the observed vector is parti-
tioned into an unobserved systematic part and an unobserved error part The
components of the errOr vector are considered as uncorrelated or indepen-
dent, while the systematic part is taken as a linear combination of a relatively
small number of unobserved factor variables. The analysis separates the
effects of the factors, which are of bnsic interest, from the error~. From
another point of view the analysis gives a description or explanation of the
interdependence of a set of variables in terms of the factors without regard to
th,~ observed variability, This approach is to be compared with principal
component analysis, which describes or «explains" the variability observed.
Factor analysis was developed originally for the analysis of scores on mental
tests; however, the methods are useful in a much wider range of situations,
for example, analyzing sets of tests of attitudes, sets of physical measure-
m.ents, and sets of economic quantities. When a battery of tests is given to a
group of individuals, it is observed that the score of an individual on a given
test is more related to his scores on other tests than to the sCores of other
individuals on the other tests; that is, usually the scores for any particular
individual are interrelated to some degree. This interrelation is "explained"
oy considering a test score of an individual as made up of a part which is
peculiar to this particular test (called error) and a part which is a function of
mOre fundamental quantities called scores of plimmy abilities or factor scores.
Since they enter several test scores, it is their effect that connects the various

An Tntroducliofl 10 Mulliuarialc Slali.~lical Alia {I'SIS. T1l1rd Edilioll. By T W. Andcr50n

ISBN 0·471 ·36091-0 Copyright © 2003 J()hn Wiley & Son", Inc,

569
570 FACfOR ANALYSIS

test scores. Roughly, the idea is that a person who is more intelligent in some
respects will do better on many tests than someone who is less intelligent.
The model for factor analysis is defined and discussed in Section 14.2.
Maximum likelihood estimators of the parameters are derived in the case
that the factor scores and errors are normally distributed, and a test that the
model fits is developed. The large·sample distribution theory is given for the
estimators and test criterion (Section 14.3). Maximum likelihood estimators
for fixed factors do not exist, but alternative estimation procedures are
suggested (Section 14.4). Some aspects of interpretation are treated in
Section 14.5. The maximum likelihood estimators are derived when the
factors are normal and identification is effected by specified zero loadings.
Finally the estimation of factor scores is considered. Anderson (19843)
discusses the relationship of factor analysis to prinCipal components and
linear functional and structural relationships.

14.2. THE MODEL

14.2.1. Definition of the Model

Let the observable vector X be written as

(1) X=Af+U+j.L,

where X, U, and j.L are column vectors of p components, f is a colu'1ln

vector of nz (5, p) components, and A is a p X m matrix. We assume that U
is distributed independently of f and with mean CU = 0 and covariance
matrix CUU' = 'II, which is diagonal. The vector f will be treated alterna~
lively as a random vector and as a vector of parameters that varies from
observation to observation.
In terms of mental tests each component of X is a score on a test or
battery of tests. The corresponding component of j.L is the average score of
this test in the popUlation. The components of f are the SCores of the mental
factors; linear combinations of these enter into the test scores. The coeffi~
dents of these linear combinations are the elements of A, and these are
called jacror loadings. Sometimes the elements of f are called common
factors because they are common to several different tests; in the first
presentation of this kind of model [Spearman (1904)] f consisted of one
component and was termed the general factor. A component of U is the part
of the test sCOre not "explained" by the common factors. This is considered as
made up of the errOr of measurement in the test plus a specific factor, having
to do only with this particular test. Since in our model (with one set of
observations on each individual) we cannot distinguish between these two
14.2 THE MODEL 571

components of the coordinate of V, we shall simply term the element of V

the error of measurement.
The specification of a given component of X is similar to that in regres-
sion theory (or analysis of variance) in that it is a linear combination of other
variables. Here, however, f, which plays the role of the independent variable,
is not observed.
We can distinguish between two kinds of models. In one we consider the
vector f to be a random vector, and in the other we consider f to be a vector
of nonrandom quantities that varies from one individual to another. In the
second case, it is more aCCurate to write Xa = A fa + V + j-L. The nonrandom
factor score vector may seem a better description of the systematic part, but
it poses problems of inference because the likelihood function may not have
a maximum. In principle, the model with random factors is appropriate when
different samples consist of different individuals; the nonrandom factor
model is suitable when the specific individuals involved and not just the
structure are of interest.
When f is taken as random, we assume $f= O. (Otherwise, $X=
A $f + j-L, and j-L can be redefined to absorb A $f.) Let $f!, = «1>. Our
analysis will be made in terms of first and second moments. Usually, we shall
consider f and V to have normal distributions. If f is not random, then
f = fa for the ath individual. Therl we shall assume usually (l/N)'LZ~, fa = 0
and (l/N)'LZ=.faf~ = «1>.
There is a fundamental indeterminacy in this model. Let f = Cf* (f* =
C-1f) and A* = AC, where C is a nonsingular m X m matrix. Then (1) can
be written as

(2) X= A*f* + V + j-L.

When f is random, $f*f*' = C-I«l>(C- I ), = «1>*; when f is nonrandom,

(l/N)'LZ=lf:f:' = «1>*. The model with A and f is equivalent to the model
with A* and f*; that is, by observing X we cannot distinguish between these
two models.
Some of the indeterminacy in the model can be eliminated by requiring
that $f!, = 1 if f is random, or 'LZ=lfaf; = NI if f is not random. In this
case the factors are said to be orthogonal; if «I> is not diagonal, the f2.ctors
are said to be. oblique. When we assume «I> = I, then $ f *f* , = C- 1(C- 1 ), = 1
(J = CC'). The indeterminacy is equivalent to multiplication by an orthogonal
matrix; this is called the problem of rotation. Requiring that «I> be diagonal
means that the components of f are independently distributed when f is
assumed normal. This has an appeal to psychologists because one idea of
common mental factors is (by definition) that they are independent or
uncorrelated quantities.
572 FACfOR ANALYSIS

A crucial assumption is that the components of U are uncorrelated. Our

viewpoint is that the errors of observation and the specific factors are by
definition uncorrelated. That is, the interrelationships of the test scores are
caused by the common factors, and that is what we want to investigate. There
is another point of view on factor analysis that is fundamentally quite
different; that is, that the common factors are supposed to explain or account
for as much of the variance of the test scores as possible. To follow this point
of view, we should use a different model.
A geometric picture helps the intuition. Consider a p-dimensional space.
The columns of A can be considered as m vectors in this space. They span
some m-dimensional subspace; in fact, they can he considered as coordinate
axes in the m-dimensional space, and f can be considered as coordinates of
a point in that space referred to this particular axis system. This subspace is
called the factor space. Multiplying A on the right hy a matrix corresponds to
taking a new set of coordinate axes in the factor space.
If the factors are random, the covariance matrix of the observed X is

(3) :.t = G(X - fl.)(X - fl.)' = G( AI + U)( AI + U)' = AtPA' + 'If.

If the factors are orthogonal (Gff' = I), then (3) is

( 4) :.t=AA'+'If.

If f and U are normal, all the information about the structure comes from
(3) [or (4)] and G X = fl..

14.2.2. Identification
Given a covariance matrix I and a number m of factors, we Cl:..n ask whether
there exist a triplet A, <l> positive definite, and 'If positive definite and
diagonal to satisfy (3); if so, is the triplet unique? Since any triplet can be
transformed into un equivalent structure A C, C- 1 4:>C,-I, and 'If, we can
put m 2 independent conditions on A and <f> to rule out this indetermin~cy.
The number of component~ in the ohservahle :£ and the number of condi-
tions (for uniqueness) is !PCp + I) +m 2 ; the numbers of parameters in A,
4:>, and 'If are pm, ~mCm + 1), and p, respectively. If the excess of observed
quantities and conditions over number of parameters, namely, H(p - m)2
-p - m], is positive, we can expect a problem of existence but can anticipate
uniqueness if a set of parameters does exist. If the excess i .. negative, we can
expect existence but possibly not uniqueness; if the excess is 0, we can hope
for both existence and uniqueness (or at least a finite number of solutions).
The question of existence of a solution is whether there exists a diagonal
14.2 THE MODEL 573

matrix W with nonnegative diagonal entries such that I - W is pOSItIve

semidefinite of rank m. Anderson and Rubin (1956) include most of the
kHown results on this problem.
If a solution exists and is unique, the model is said to be i-tentified. As
noted above, some m 2 conditions have to be put on A and 4> to eliminate a
transformation A* = AC and 4>* C- I 4>C' I, We have referred above to
the condition 4> -- I, which forces a transformation C to be orthogonal.
[There are 4m(m + 1) component equations in <I> = 1.] For some purposes. it
is convenient to add the restrictions that

(5)

iR diagonal. If the diagonal elements of r are ordered and different ('Y II >
122 > ... > 'Ymm), A is uniquely determined. Alternative conditions are that
the first m rOWS of A form a lower triangular matrix. A generalization of this
c.Jndition is to require that the first m rows of B A form a lower triangular
matrix, where B is given in advance. (This condition is implied by the
SCI-called centroid method.)

Simple Structure
These are conditions proposed by Thurstone (1947, p. 335) for choosing a
matrix out of the class AC that will have particular psychological meaning. If
Aia = 0, then the ath factor does not enter into the ith test. The general idea
of simple structure is that many tests should not depend on all the factors
when the factors have real psychological meaning. This suggests that. given a
A, one should consider all rotations, that is, all matrices A C where C is
orthogonal, and choose the one giving most 0 coefficients. This matrix can be
considered a,~ giving the simple.~t structure and presumably the one with most
meaningful psychological interpretation. It should be remembered that the
psychologist can construct his or her tests so that they depend on the
assumed factors in different ways.
The positions of the O's are not chosen in advance, but rotations Care
tried until a A is found satisfying these conditions. It is not clear that these
conditions effect identification. Reiers¢1 (1950) modified Thurstone's condi~
tions so that there is only one rotation that satisfies the conditions. thus
effecting identification.

Zero Elements in Specified Positions

Here we consider a set of conditions that requires of the investigator more
a priori information. He or she must know that some particular tests do not
depend on some specific factol s. In this case, the conditions are that Ala = 0
for specified pairs (i, a)j that IS, that the ath factor does not affect the ith
574 FACTOR ANALYSIS

test score. Then we do not assume that #;'ff' = I. These conditions are
similar to some llsed in econometric models. The coefficients of the a th
column are identified except for multiplication by a scale factor if (a) there
are at least m - 1 zero elements in that column and if (b) the rank of Ala) is
111 - 1. where At") is the matrix composed of the rowS containing the
assigned O's in the a th column with those assigned O's deleted (Le., the a th
column deleted). (See Problem 14.1.) The multiplication of a column by a
scale constant can be eliminated by a normalization, such as <baa = 1 or
ArQ = 1 for some i for each a. If <baa = 1, a = 1, ... ,m, then «I> is a
correlation matrix.
It will be seen that there are m normalizations and a minimum of
m(m - 1) zero conditions. This is equal to the number of elements of C. If
there are more than m - 1 zerO elements specified in one or more columns
of A. then there may be more conditions than are required to take out the
indeterminacy in A C; in this case thc condition!; may restrict A «I> A'.
As an example, consider the model

0
AZI 0
(6) X=j.L+ A31 A32 [~] + V
0 A42
0 1

V
A21 V

A31 v + A32 a
=j.L+ +V
A42 a
a

for the scores on five tests, where v and a are meaSUres of verbal and
arithmetic ability. The fir!;t tWo tests are specified to depend only on verbal
ability While the last two tests depend only on arithmetic ability. The
normalizations put verbal ability into the scale of the first test and arithmetic
ability into the scale of the fifth test.
Koopmans and Reiers9l1 (1950), Anderson and Rubin (1956), and Howe
(1955) suggested the use of preassigned O's for identification and developed
maximum likelihood estimation under normality for this case. [See also
Lawley (1958).] Joreskog (1969) called factor analysis under these identifica-
tion conditions confirmatory factor analysis; with arbitrary conditions or with
rotation to simple structure, it has been called exploratory factor analysis.
14.2 THE MODEL 575

Other CondUlo1ZS
A convenient set of conditions is to require the upper square submatrix of A
to be the identity. This assumes that the upper f:quare matrix without this
condition is nonsingular. In fact, if A* = (A~', A*2')' is an arbitrary p X m
matrix with Ai square and nonsingular, then A = A*Ai 1 (1m' A'2)' satis-
fies the co~dition. (This specification of the leading m X m submatrix of A
as 1m is a convenient identification condition and does not imply any
substantive meaning.)

14.2.3. Units of Measurement

We have considered factor analysis methods applied to covariance matrices.
In many cases the unit of measurerPent of each component of X i'5 arbitrary.
For instance, in psychological tests the unit of scoring has no intrinsic
meaning.
Changing the unit~ of measurement means multiplying each component of
X by a constant; these constants are not necessarily equal. When a given test
score is multiplied by a constant, the factor loadings for the test are
multiplied by the same constant and the error variance is multiplied by
square of the constant. Suppose DX = X* J where D is a diagonal matrix with
positive diagonal elements. Then (1) becomes
(7) X* = A*f + U* + ....* ,
where ....* = 8 X* = D .... , A* = D A, and U* = DU has covariance matrix
'1'* =DWD. Then
(8) 8(X* - ....*)(X* - ....*)' = A*«I>A*' + '11* "" I*,
where I* = DID. Note that if the identification conditions are «I> = I and
A' 'II -I A diagonal, then A* satisfies the latter condition. If A is identified
by specified O's and the normalization is by <Puu = 1, 0: = 1, ... , m (Le., «I> is a
correlation matrix), then A* = DA is similarly identified. (If the normaliza-
tion is Aiu = 1 for specified i for each 0:, each column of DA has to be
renormalized.)
A particular diagonal matrix D consists of the reciprocals of the observ-
able standard deviations d j1 = 1/ {Ci:;. Then l;* = D~D is the correlation
matrix.
We shall see later that the maximum likelihood estimators with identifica-
t:on conditions r diagonal or specified O's transform in the above fashion;
that is, the transformation x! = Dxn , 0: = 1, ... , N, induces A* DA and
" =DWD.
'1"* "
576 FACfOR ANALYSIS

14.3. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM

ORTHOGONAL FACTORS

14.3.1. Maximum Likelihood Estimators

In this section we find the maximum likelihood estimators of the parameters
when the observations are normally distributed, that is, the factor scores and
errors are normal [Lawley (1940)]. Then I = A<pA' + W. We impose condi-
tions on A and <P to make them just identlfied. These do not testrict
A <P A'; it is a positive definite matrix of rank m. For convenience we
suppose that <P = 1 (Le., the factors are orthogonal or uncorrelated) and that
r = A ''1'-1 A is diagonal. Then the likelihood depends on the mean .... and
I = A A' + W. The maximum likelihood estimators of A and <P under some
other conditions effecting just identificction [e.g., A = (1m' 1\'2)'] are trans-
formations of the maximum likelihood estimators of A under the preceding
conditions. If Xl"'" XN are a set of N observations on X, the likelihood
function for this sample is

The maximum likelihood estimator of the mean .... is fL = i = (1/N)E~=1 xa>

Let
N
(2) A= E (xa-i){xa- i )'.
a=l

Next we shall maximize the logarithm of (I) with .... replaced by fl.; this ist

(3)
(This is the logarithm of the concentrated likelihood.) From 1 I-I = I, we
obtain for any parameter fJ

( 4)

Then the partial derivative of (3) with regard to 1/111' a diagonal element of
'It, is - N /2 times
P
(5) (Tii - E CkJ(TJb-
ik
,
k.J=D

tWe could add the restriction that the off-diagonal elements of A''I' - I A are 0 with Lagrange
mUltipliers, but then the Lagrange multipliers become 0 when the derivatives are set equal to O.
Such restrictions do not affect the maximum.
]4.3 ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM ORTHOGONAL FACTORS 577

where I -I = ({TIJ) and (C ,j ) = C = (1/ N)A. In matrix notation. (5) set equal
to 0 yields

(6)

where diag H indicates the diagonal terms of the matrix H. Equivalently

diagI- 1(I - C)I- 1 = diagO. The derivative of(3) with respect to A~, is -N
times
p P
'\' kJ\ '\' klr
(7) ~ {T fljT - ~ {T c 'rg {T !:r\fl}r' k = l, .... p. r= 1•... ,111.
j=1 h,g,J=1

In matrix notation (7) set equal to 0 yields

(8)
We have

From this we obtain 'I'-lA(f +1)-1 = I-IA. Multiply (8) by I and use the
above to obtain

(10)
or

(11)

Next we want to show that I-I-I-ICI- I =I-I(I-C)I- 1 is

'II.- 1(I - C)W- I when (8) holds. Multiply the latter by I on the left and on
the right to obtain .

(12)
I ",-1 (I - C) W- I I = ( A A' + W) W- I ( W + A A' - C) '1'- I ( A A' + W)
=W+AA'-C
because

(13) A A'W-I(W + A A' - C) = A A' + A fA' - A A/W-1C

= A[(I+ f) A' - A'W-IC]
=0
by virtue of (0). Thus

(14)
578 FACfOR ANALYSIS

Then (6) is equhulent to diag 'I'-I(I - C)'I'-I = diagO. Since 'I' is diago-
nal. this equation is equivalent to

(15) diag( A A' + '1') = diag C.

The e~timators .\ and ~ are determined by (0), (15), and the requiremert
that A' 'I' -I '\ is diagonal.
We can multiply (11) on the left by '1'- t to obtain

( 16)

which shows that the columns of '1'- t A are characteristic vectors of

'1'- t(C- '1')'1'- t = '1'- tC'I'- + -I and the corresponding diagonal ele-
ments of r are the characteristic roots. [In fact, the characteristic vectors of
'1'- ~C'I'- t - I are the characteristic vectOrS of '1'- tC'I'- ~ because
('1'- iC'I'-! -I)x= yx is equivalent to '1'- tC'I'- ~x= 0 + y)x.] The vec-
toni are normalized by ('I' - ~ A )' ('I' - ~ A ) = A' 'I' - I A = r. The character'stic
roots are chosen to maximize the likelihood. To evaluate the maximized
likelihood function we calculate

( 17) trCi- 1 = trCi-l(i - A A,),.,-I

= tr [ C'" I - (ci -1A) A' '" -I]

=tr(c",-l -AA,,,,-I]

= tr[ ( A A' + ",)",-1 - A A"1,-11

=p.

The third equality follows from (8) multiplied on the left by I; the fourth
equality follows from (5) and the fact that ,,it is diagonal. Next we find

(IS) \i \ = \ '" 1: \ .\ ~ - ~ A A' '" .- ± + 1p \.\ ~~ \

= \ '" \ ·1 A /~ - +", - +A + 1m I
=\"'\'\£'+1",\
P m
= n ~II n (1,) + 1).
,= 1 )= 1

The scc()t1d equality is I UU' + T{,I = I U'U + 1",1 for Up X m, which is proved
as in ()4) Dr Section HA. From tht.: fact that the charuclcri~tic roots of
14.3 ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM ORTHOGONAL FACTORS 579

I I
'1'- 2"(C - '1')'1'- 2" are the roOlS 1'1> 1'2> ." > I'p of 0 = I C - qr - 1''1'1 =
IC-(1+I')qrl,

(19)
ICI
-,,- =
1'1'1
n (1 + 1',).
p

i=1
"

[Note that the roots 1 + 1', of '1'- tCqr - tare poslllve. The roots I'i of
'1'- ~(C - '1')'1''' t are not necessarily positive; usually some will be negative.]
Then

(20)

where S is the set of indices corresponding to the roots in f. The logarithm

of the maximized likelihood function is

(21) - ~pN log27T - iN logl CI - !N E 10g(1 + 1')) - iNp.

j'l-S

The largest roots 1'1 > ... > 1'm should be selected for diagonal elements of
t. Then S = {l, ... , m}. The logarithm of the concentrated likelihood (3) is a
function of I = A A' + qr. This matrix is positive definite for every A and
every diagonal 'I' that is positive definite; it is also positive definite for some
diagonal 'I' 's that are not positive definite. Hence there is not necessarily a
relative maximum for qr positive definite. The concentrated likelihood
function may increase as one or more diagonal elements of qr approaches O.
In that case the derivative equations may not be satisfied for qr positive
definite.
The equations for the estinlators (11) and (15) can be written as polyno-
mial equations [multiplying (11) by 1'1'1], but cannot be solved directly. There
are various iterative procedures for finding a maximum of the likelihood
function, including steepest descent, Newton-Raphson, scoring (using the
information matrix), and Fletcher-Powell. [See Lawley and Maxwell (1971),
Appendix II, for a discussion.]
Since there may not be a relativ~ maximum in the region for which I/I/i > 0,
i = 1, ... , p, an iterative procedure may define a sequence of values of A and
q, that includes ~i1 < 0 for some indices i. Such negative values are inadmis-
sible because I/Iii is interpreted as the variance of an error. One may impose
the condition that I/Ii' ~ 0, i = 1, ... ,p. Then the maximum may occur on the
boundary (and not all of the derivative equations will be satisfied). For some
indices i the estimated variance of the error is 0; that is, some test scores are
exactly linear combinations of factor scores. If the identification conditions
580 FACfOR ANALYSIS

ct> = I and A ''1'-1 A diagonal are dropped, we can find a coordinate system
for the factors such that the test scores with a errOr variance can be
interpreted as (transformed) factor scores. That interpretation does not seem
useful. [See Lawley and Maxwell (1971) for further discussion.]
An alternative to requiring I/Ili to be positive is to require 1/11/ to be
bounded away from O. A possibility is l/lli ~ eUri for some small e, such as
0.005. Of course, the value of e is arbitrary; increasing e will decrease the
value of the maximum if the maximum is not in the interior of the restricted
region, and the derivative equations will not all be satisfied.
The nature of the concentrated likelihood is such that more than one
relative maximum may be possible. Which maximum an iterative procedure
approaches will depend on the initial val ues. Rubin and Thayer (1982) have
given an example of three sets of estimates from three different initial
estimates using the EM algorithm.
The EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm is a possible computational
device for maximum likelihood estimation [Dempster, Laird, and Rubin
(1977), Rubin and Thayer (1982)]. The idea is to treat the unobservable f's as
missing data. Under the assumption that f and U have a joint normal
distribution, the sufficient statistics are the means and covariances of the X's
and f's. The E-step of the algorithm is to obtain the expectation of the
covariances on the basis of trial values of the param".!ters. The M-step is to
maximize the likelihood function on the basis of these covariances; this step
provides updated values of the parameters. The steps alternate, and the
procedure usually converges to the maximum likelihood estimators. (See
Problem 14.3.)
As noted in Section 14.2, the structure is equivariant and the factor scores
are invariant under changes in the units of measurement of the observed
variables X --+ DX, where D is a diagonal matrix with positive diagonal
elements and A is identified by A''I'- l A is diagonal. If we let DA= A*,
D 'if J) = 'I' * , and DCD = C* , then the logarithm of the likelihood function is
a constant plus a constant times

(22) -iogi '11* + A* A* '1- tr C* ('11* + A* A* ,)-1

= -logl'l'+AA'I-trC('I1+AA,)-1-210gIDI.
The maximum likelihood estimators of A* and '1'* are A* = DA and
.qr* = D'" D, and A* ,,,,*-1 A* = A ",-I A is diagonal. Tha: is, the estimated
factor loadings and errOr variances are merely changed by the units of
measurement.
It is often convenient to use d,; = 1/ rc::,
so DCD = (rl ) is made up of
the sample correlation coefficients. The analysis is independent of the units
of measurement. This fact is related to the fact that psychological test scores
do not have natural units.
14.3 ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM ORTHOGONAL FACTORS SSI

The fact that the factors do not depend on the location and seale factors is
one reason for considering factor analysis as an analysis of interdependence.
It is convenient to give some ruk:-; or thumh for initial c:-;timatc:-; of the'
cotnmunalitie~, E~tI~ I ),.7J = 1 - Ifr".
in terms of observed correlations. One rlile
is to use the R~'I ..... i~I.Jtl. ..• I" Another is to tll'C max" I,II'"J

14.3.2. Test of the Hypothesis That the Model Fits

We shall derive the likelihood ratio test that the model fitl'; that is. that for a
specified m the covariance matrix can be written as I = 'It + A A for some I

diagonal positive definite 'It and some p x m matrix A. The likelihood ratio
criterion' is

max ... ,A,'IJI LC ..... 'It + A A')

(23)
max .... l: L( ..... I)

because the unrestricted maximum likelihood estimator of I is C, tr C( q, +

AA)-l=p by (17), and ICI/lil =rr;''''"I+\(1 +yJ)t.v from (20). The null
hypothesis is rejected if (23) is toO )mall. We can usc - 2 timt.:s the log<.lrithm
of the likelihood ratio criterion:
p
(24) -N E 10g(1 + 1J)
j=m + I

and reject the null hypothesis if (24) is too large.

If the regularity conditions for .q, and ti to be asymptotically normally
distributed hold, the limiting distribution of (24) under the null hypothe~is is
X 2 with degrees of freedom H(p - mf· - p m], which is the number of
elements of I plus the number of identifying restrictions minus the number
of parameters in 'It and A. Bartlett (1950) suggested replacing .'V byt
N - (2p + 11)/6 - 2m!3. See also Amemiya and Anderson (1990).
From (15) and the fact that 11' ... ,1/)
are the characteristk roots of
.q,- t(C - .q,).q,- t we have
(25) o= tr .q, - &( C - ~- A A') .q, - l

P "1 I'
"
== E Yj- E -Yi= "\....
L.J ')I"
!= 1 1= I i=m+l

tThis factor is heuristic. If m = O. the factor from Chaplcr 9 i~.V elp + 11 )/6: B,mkfl
suggested replacing Nand p by N - m and p - m. re~pective1y.
582 FACfOR ANALYSIS

If I yo' I < I for j = nz + 1. ... , p, we can expand (24) using (25) as

f' p
(26) ·-N E (1'j - ~1'/ + ±1'/ - ... ) = ~ N E (yl - ~1'/ + .,. ).
j=,"+1 j=m+l

The criterion is approximately ~N'[r=m + I Y/.

The estimators Wand A. are
found so that C - W- A A is small in a statistical sense or, equivalently,
I

so C - W is approximately of rank m. Then the smallest p - m roots of

.q,- !lC - .q,).q,- + should be near O. The crit~rion measures the deviations
of these roots from O. Since Ym + I " ' " Yp are the nonzero roots of
q,-- '(C- i)q,- !, we see that

(27)

because the diagonal elements of C - I are O.

In many situations the investigator does not know a value of m to
hypothesize. He or she want~ to determine the smallest number of factors
such that the model is consistent with the data. It is customary to test
successive values of m. The investigator starts with a test that the number of
factors is a specified !no (possibly 0 or 1). If that hypothesis is rejected, one
proceeds to test that the number is mo + 1. One continues in that fashion
until a hypothesis is accepted or until ~[(p - m)2 - p - m) :::; O. In the last
event one concludes that no nontrivial factor model fits. Unfortunately,
the prObabilities of errors under this procedure are unknown, even asymptot-
ically.

1..... 3.3. Asymptotic Distributions of the Estimators

The maximum likelihood estimators A and W maximize the average concen-
trated log likelihood functions L*(C, A*, 'It * ) given by (3) divided by N for
I'- = '1'* + A* A* /, subject to A* /'It*-1 A* being diagonal. If C is a consis-
tent estimator of I (the "true" covariance matrix), then L*(C, A*, 'It*)--)
L" ( 'If + A A', A* , '1'*) uniformly in probability in a neighborhood of A, '\}f,
and L* ('It + A A', A*, 'It * ) has a unique maximum at 'V* = 'I' and A* =- A.
Because the function is continuous, the A*, '1'* that maximize
L'(C. A*. 'It*) must converge stochastically to A, W.
14.3 ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM ORTHOGONAL FACfORS S83

Theorem 14.3.1. If Aand l{r are identified by A Il{r-l A being diagonal, if

the diagonal elements are different and ordered, and if C .!!..:. '" + A AI, then
&~6 p A p
T -+ '" and A -+ A.

A sufficient condition for C ~ I is that (I' VI)' has a distribution with

finite second-order moments.
The estimators A and .q, are the solutions to the equations (10), (15), and
the requirement that A' ",-IA is diagonal. These equations are polynomial
equations. The derivatives of A and W as functions of C are continuous
unless they become infinite. Anderson and Rubin (1956) investigated condi-
tions for the derivative to be finite and proved the following theorem:

Theorem 14.3.2. Let

(28)
If ( Ol~) is nonsingular, if A and l{r are identified by the condition that A ",-I A
I

is diagonal and the diagonal elements are different and ordered, if C ~ '" + A A I,
and if {N (C - I) has a limiting normal distribution, then {N ( A - A) and
{N (.q, - "') have a limiting normal distribution.

For example, {N (C - I) will have a limiting distribution if (I' U')' has a

distribution ,"ith finite fourth moments.
The covariance matrix of the limiting distribution of {N ( A - A) and
{N(.q, - "') is too complicated to derive Or even present here. Lawley U953)
found covariances for {N ( A - A) appropriate for '" known, and Lay,.ley
(1967) extended his work to the case of '" estimated. [See also Lawley and
Maxwell (1971).] Jennrich and Thayer (1973) corrected an error ill his work.
The covariance of {N(~ii - I/IJ and {N(~) - 1/1)/) in the limiting distribu-
tion is
(29) 2·{,2./,'2/:1/ i,j=l, ... ,p,
"I'll "I'}) ~ ,

where (~i}) = (Oi7)-I. The other covariances are too involved to give here.
While the asymptotic covariances are too complicated to give insight into
the sampling variability, they can be programmed for computation. In that
case the parameters are replaced by their consistent estimators.

14.3.4. Minimum-Distance Methods

An alternative to maximum likelihood is generalized least squares. The
estimators are the valnes of '" and A that minimize
(30) tr ( C - I) H ( C - I) H,
584 FACfOR ANALYSIS

where l: = '11 + A A' and H = l: -lor some consistent estimator of l: -1.

When H = l: -1, the objective function is of the form

(31) [ c - c:r ( '11, A)]' [ cov c r I[C- c:r ( '11, A)],

where c: represents the elements of C arranged in a vector, c:r{'I1, A) i"

'11 + A A 1 arranged ina correspondi ng vector, and cov c is the covariance
matrix vf c under normality [Anderson (l973a)]. Joreskog ",nd Goldberger
(1972) use C- 1 for Hand minimize

(32)

The matrix of derivatives with respect to the elements of A set equal to 0

forms the matrix equation

(33)
This can be rewritten as

(34)
Multiplication on the left by l: -I Cl: -I yields (8\ which leads to (10). This
estimator of A given '11 is the same as the maximum likelihood estimator
except for normalization of columns. The equation obtained by setting the
derivatives of (32) with respect to '11 equal to 0 is

(35)
An alt~rnative is to minimize

(36)

This leads to (8) or (0) and

(37)
Browne (1974) showed that the generalized least squares estimator of '11 has
the same asymptotic distribution as the maximum likelihood estimator. Dahm
and Fuller (1981) showed that if Cove in (31) is replaced by a matrix
converging to cove and '11, A, and <I> depend on some parameters, then the
asymptotic distributions are the same as for maximum likelihood.

14.3.5. Relation to Principal Component Analysis

What is the relation of maximum likelihood to the principal component
analysis proposed by Hotelling (1933)1 As explained in Chapter 11, the vector
of sample principal components is the orthogonal transformation BI X, where
14.3 ESTIMATORS FOR RANDOM ORTHOGONAL FACTORS 585

th~columns of B are the characteristic vectors of C normalized by B'B = I.

Then
P
(38) C=BTB ' = E b,t,b;,
1"'-1

where T is the diagonal matrix with diagonal dements 'I"'" '", the charac~
teristic roots of C. If tm+I, •.• ,tp are small, C can be approximated by
III

(39) B1TIB; = E bJ, b;,

1'" I

where Tl is the diagonal matrix with diagonal elements t I' ... ,tm , and X is
approximated by
III

(40)
,"'I

Then the sample covariance of the difference between X and the approxima~
don (40).is the sample covariance of
(41)

which is B:.T2B; = Ef=m + I b,t,b;, and the sum of the variances of tht: compo~
nents is Er=m + 1 t l , Here 1'2 is the diagonal matrix with t l1/ + It' •• , (p as:
diagonal elements.
This analysis is in terms of some common unit of measurement. The first
m components "explain" a large proportion of the "variance/' tr C. When the
units of measurement are not 1he same (e.g., when the units are arbitrary),
it is customary to standardize each measurement to (sample) variance 1.
However, then the principal components do not have the interpretation in
telms of variance.
Another difference between principal component analysis and factor anal~
ysis is that the former does not separate the error from the systematic part.
This fault is easily remedied, however, Thomson (1934) proposed the follow.
ing estimation procedure for the factor analysis model. A diagonal matrix qt
is subtracted from C. and the principal component analysis is carried out on
C - qt. However, qt is determined so C - qt is close to rank m. The
equations are
(42) (C qt)A= AL,
(43) diag( qt + A A) = diag C,
(44) N. A = L diagonal.
The last equation is a normalization and takes out the indeterminacy in :\.
This method allows for the error terms, but still depends on the units of
586 FACfOR ANALYSIS

measurement. The estimators are consistent but not (asymptotically) efficient

in the usual factor analysis model.

14.3.6. Tht' Centroid Method

Before the availability of high-speed computers, the centroid method was
used almost exclusively because of its computational ease. For the sake of
history we give a sketch of the method. Let R* be the correlation reduced
matrix, that is, the matrix consisting of rlf , i *" j, and I - ~;i, where ~it is a,
initial estimate of the error variance in standard deviation units. Thomson's
principal components approach is first to find the m characteristic vectors of
Ro = R* corresponding to the m largest characteristic roots. As indicated in
Chapter 11, one computational method involves starting with an initial
estimate of the l1rst vector, say x(°l, calculating X(I) = Rox(°l, and iterating. At
the rth step x(r) is approximately YI X(r-ll, where Yl is the largest root and
x(r)'x(r) - yix1r-I)'X(r-l). Then YI =x(r)/~YIX(r-I)'x(r-l) is approximate.ly

the first characteristic vector normalized so Y~ YI = YI' To o.Jtain the second

vector. apply the same procedure to Rl = R* - Yly'I'
The centroid method can be considered as a very rough approximation to
the principu.! component approach. With psychological tests the correlation
matrix usually consists of positive entries, and the first characteristic vector
has all positive components, often of about the same value. The centroid
method uses £ = 0, ... , 1)' as the initial estimate of the first vector. Then
R* £ = x(l) is the first iterate and should be an approximation to the first
characteristic vectOr. An approximation to the first characteristic root is
£' R'" £ 1£' £. Then Y I = x(l) 1 / £' R* £ is an approximation to the first charac-
teristic vector of R* normalized to have length squared YI' The operations
can he carried out on an adding machine or on a desk calculator because
R* £ amounts to adding across rows and £' R* £ is the sum of those row
totals.
Thr.: second characteristic vector is orthogonal to the first. A vector
orthogonal to E is £* consisting of p 12 1's and p 12 -l's. Then Rl £* = x 2 is
an approximation to the second characteristic vector, and £*' RI £* 1£* '£*
approximates the second characteristic root. These operations involve chang-
ing signs of entries of Rl and adding. The positions of the -1 's in £* are
selected to maximize £*' RI£*' The procedure can be continued.

14.4. ESTIMATION FOR FIXED FACTORS

( 1) Xa. = A fa. + 1.1. + Va.

14.5 FACfOR INTERPRETATION AND TRANSFORMATION 587

with fa being a 110nstochastic vector (an incidental parameter), ex = 1, ... , N,

satisfying r.~= [fa = O. The likelihood function is

1 n cxp
P ( N
_1.2 '\' ( _ _ '\"m A f. )2 \
f
(2) L = N /2 '-.J
x/a /1-/ L..j
,I,
=I '/ fa
.
[( 27T)PflP ",.]
/=1 '1-'11
;=1 a=1 '1-'1/

This likelihood function does not have a maximum. To show this fact, let
/1-1=0, Al1 =l, A1/=0 (j=t=I), flu=X 1u ' Then X[Cl-/1-I-r./~IAij~a=O,
and I/III does not appear in the exponent but appears only in the constant.
As I/Il! -+ 0, L -+ 00. Thus the likelihood does not have a maximum, and the
maximum 1ik:elihood estimators do not exist [Anderson and Rubin (1956)].
Lawley (1941) set the partial derivatives of the likelihood equal to 0, but
Solari (1969) showed that the solution is only a stationary value, not a
maxImum.
Since maximum liLelihood estimators do not exist in the case of fixed
factors, what estimation methods can be used? One possibility is to use the
maximum likelihood method appropriate for random factors. It was stated by
Anderson and Rubin (1956) and proved by Fuller, Pantula, and Amemiya
(1982) in the case of identification by O's that the asymptotic normal distribu-
tion of the maximum likelihood estimators for the random case is the same as
for fixed factors.
The sample covariance matrix under normality ha:-> the noncentral Wishart
distribution [Anderson (l946a)] depending on'll, A<I>A', and N -1. Ander-
son and Rubin (1956) proposed maximizing this likelihood function. How-
ever, one of the equations is difficult to solve. Again the estimators are
asymptotically equivalent to the maximum likelihood estimators for the
nndom-factor case.

14.5. FACTOR INTERPRETATION AND TRANSFORMATION

14.5.1. Interpretation
The identification restrictions of A ''11- IA diagonal or the first m roWs of A
being 1m may be convenient for computing the maximum likelihood estima-
tors, but the components of the factor score vector may not have any intrinsic
meaning. We saw in Section 14.2 that 0 coefficients may give meaning to a
factor by the fact that this factor does not affect certain tests. Similarly, large
factor loadings may help in interpreting a factor. The coefficient of verbal
ability, for example, should be large on tests that look like they are verbal.
In psychology each variable Or factor usually has a natural positive direc-
tion: more answers right on a test and more of the ability represented by the
factor. It is usuaUy expected tl.at more ability leads to higher performance;
that is, the factor loading should be positive if it is not O. Therefore, roughly
588 FACfOR ANALYSIS

. .
·('\21. '\22)
. "
·('\31. '\32)

------------1------------ '\il

Figure 14.1. Rows of A.

speaking, for the sake of interpretation, one may look for factor loadings that
are either 0 or positive and large.

14.5.2. Transfonnations
The maximum likelihood estimators on the basis of some arbitrary identifica·
tion conditions including ~ = I are A and W. We consider transformations

( 1)

If the factors are to be orthogonal, then ~* = I and P is orthogonal. If the

factors are permitted to be oblique, P can be an arbitrary nOllsingular matrix
and ~* an arbitrary positive definite matrix.
The rows of A can be plotted in an m-dimensional space. Figure 14.1 is a
plot of the rows of a 5 X 2 matrix A. The coordinates refer to factors and the
points refer to tests. If ~* is required to be 1m' we are seeking a rotation of
coordinate axes in this space. In the example that is graphed, a rotation of
45 0 would put all of the points into the positive quadrant, that is, Ai]:2!. o. One
of the new coordinates would be large for each of the first three points and
small for the other two points, and the other coordinate would be small for
the first three and large for the last two. The first factor is representative of
what is common to the first three tests, a.ld the second factor of what is
common to the last two tests.
If m > 2, a general rotation can be approximated manually by a sequence
of two-dllllensional rotations.
14.5 FACTOR INTERPRETATJON'~ND TRANSFORMATION 589

If <})* is not required to b(~ 1m , the transformation P is simply nonsingu-

lar. If the normalization of thl;: jth column of A is AI(!),J = 1, then
m
(2) 1= XitJ).J = L A/(J).kPkj;
k I

each column of P satisfies such a constraint. If the normalization is rPjJ = 1,

then
1/1

(3) 1 = q,J~ = L (plkf,

k 1

where (pJk) = p-l.

Of the various computational procedures that are based on optimizing an
objective function, we describe the varimax method proposed by Kaiser
(1958) to be carried out on pairs of factors. Horst (1965), Chapter 18,
extended the method to be done on all factors simultaneously. A modified
criterion is

( 4)

which is proportional to the sum of the column variances of the squares of

the transformed factor loadings. The orthogonal matrix P is selected so as to
maximize (4). The procedure tends to maximize the scatter of Xi/ within
columns. Since Aj/:::?: 0, there is a tendency to obtain some large loadings and
some near O. Kaiser's original criterion was (4) with A;,~ replaced hy
Ai,.2/ L 'h= 1 Xi;' .
Lawley and Maxwell (1971) describe other criteria. One of them is a
measure of similarity to a predetermined P X m matrix of l's and O's.

14.5.3. Orthogonal versus Oblique Factors

In the case of orthogonal factors the components are uncorrelated in the
population or in the sample according to whether the factors are considered
random or fixed. The idea of uncorrelated factor scores has appeal. Some
psychologists claim that the orthogonality of the factor scores is essential if
one is to consider the factor SCOres more basic than the test scores. Consider·
able debate has gone on among psychologists concerning this point. On the
other side, Thurstone (1947), page vii, says "it seems just as unnecessary to
require that mental traits shall be uncorrelated in the general population as
to require that height and weight be uncorrelated in the general population."
As we have seen, given a pair of matrices A,~, equivalent pairs are given
by A p, p- I ~ P' - I for nonsingular P's. The pair may be selected (i.e .. the P
590 FACfOR ANALYSIS

given A. <1» as the one with the most meaningful interpretation in terms of
the subject matter of the tests. The idea of simple structure is that with 0
fUl:tor loadiIlgs in l:crtain patterns the component factor SCores can be given
meaning regardless of the moment matrix. Permitting <I> to be an arbitrary
positive definite matrix allows more O's in A.
Another consideration 1n selecting transformations or identification conJi~
lions is autonomy, or permanence, or invariance with regard to certain
changes. For example, what happens if a selection of the constituents of a
population is made? In case of intelligence tests, suppose a selection is made,
such a~ college admittees out of high school seniors, that can be assumed to
involve the primary abilities. One can envisage that the relation between
unob~e1ved factor SCores f and observed test scores x is unaffected by the
selection, that is. that the mdtrix of factor loadings A is unchanged. The
variance of the errors (and specific factors), the diagonal elements of '11, may
also be comidered as unchanged by the selection because the errors are
uncorrelated with the factors (primary abilities).
SlIppose there is a {rue model, A, <1>, '11, and the investigator applies
identification conditions that permit him to discover it. Next, suppose there is
a selection that results in a new population of factor SCores so that their
l:ovariancc matrix is <1>*. When the inve!>tigator analyzes the new observed
covariance matrix '11 + A <1>* A', will he find A again? If part of the identifi-
cation conditions are that the factor moment matrix is I, then he wiil obtain
a different factor loading matrix. On the oH er hand, if the identification
conditions are entirely on the factor loadings (specified O's and 1's), the factor
loading matrix from the analysis is the same as before.
The same consideration is relevant in comparing two populations. It may
be reasonable to consider that WI = '112 ' A 1= A 2, but <1>1 *" <1>2' To test the
hypothesis that <1>1 = <1>2' one wants to u::;e identification conditions that
agree with A I = A 2 (ratha than A I = A ~C). The condition should be on
the factor loadings.
What happens if more tests are added (or deleted)? In addition to
observing X = A f + fJ.. + U. 5iuppose one observes X* = A*f + fJ..* + U*,
when: U t- iJo; 1Il1corrl'lakd with U. Since the common factor!> f are un-
changed, cI> is unchanged. However, the (arbitrary) condition that A' '11- I A
is diagonal is changed; use of this type of condition would lead to a rotation
onA' A*').

14.6. ESTIMATION FOR IDENTIFICATION BY SPECIFIED ZEROS

We now consider estimation of A, '11, and <I> when <I> is unrestricted and A
is identified by specified O's and 1'so We assume that each column of A has at
14.7 ESTIMATION OF FACfOR SCORES 591

least m + 1 O's in specified positions and that the submatrix consisting of the
rows of A containing the O's specified for a given column is of rank m - 1.
(See Section 14.2.2.) We further assume that each column of A has 1 in a
specified position or, alternatively, that the diagonal element of <fJ corre-
sponding to that column is 1. Then the model is identified.
The likelihood function is given by (0 of Section 14.3. The derivatives of
the likelihood function set equal to 0 are

(1 ) diag ~ -1 [ C - ( '11 + A <fJ A ') ] ~ -I = diag 0,

(2) A'~-l [C- ('11 + A<fJA')]~-1A = 0

for positions in ~ that are not specified, and

(3)

for positions in A not specified, where

( 4) I=W+A<fJA.

These equations cannot be simplified as in Section 14.3.1 because (3) holds

only for unspecified positions in A, and hence one cannot multiply by ~ on
the left. [See Howe (1955), Anderson and Rubin (1956), and Lawley (1958).]
These equations are not useful for computation. The likelihood function,
however, can be maximized nume··ically.
As noted before, a change in units of measurement, X* = DX, results in a
corresponding change in the parameters A and'll if identification is by 0 in
specified positions of A and normalization is by CPjj = 1, j = 1, ... , m. It is
readily verified that the derivative equations (0, (2), (3), and (4) are changed
in a corresponding manner.
Anderson and Amemiya (1988a) have derived the asymptotic distribution
of the estimators under general conditions. Normality of the observations is
not required. See also Anderson and Amemiya C1988b).

14.7. ESTIMATION OF FACTOR SCORES

It is frequently of interest to estimate the factor scores of the individuals in

the group being studied. In the model with nonstochastic factors the factor
SCOres are incidental paraneters that characterize the individuab. As we
have seen (Section 14.4), the maximum likelihood estimators of the parame-
ters ('11, A, Jl., 11' ... , IN) do not exist. We shall therefore study the estima-
tion of the factor scores on the basis that the structural parameters ('11, ,\, Jl.)
are known.
592 FACfOR ANALYSIS

When fa is considered as an incidental parameter, XCI - f1 is an observa·

tion from a distribution with mean A fa and covariance matrix W. The
weighted least squares estimator of fa is

( 1) f:= (A'W- A) 1
-1 A'W- 1 (x a - fJ.)
= r- 1A'W- 1 (xa - f1),

where r = A' '11- 1 A (not necessarily diagonal). This estimator is unbiased

and its covariance matrix is

(2)

by the usual generalized least squares theory [Bartlett (1937b),(l938)]. It is

the minimum variance unbiased linear estimator of fa' If xa is normal, the
esti mator is also maximum likelihood.
'When fa is considered random [Thomson (1951)], we suppose Xa and fa
have a joint normal distribution with mean vector (f1', 0')' and covariance
matrix

(3) .fi(X)
f
= (W+Atf>A'
tPAt
Atf»
tf> .

Then the regression of f on X (Section 2.5) is

( 4) S(J1X) = tf>A '( '11 + Atf>At) -t( X - f1)

= tf>( tP + tPrtf» -1 tf>A ''11- 1 (X - f1).

The estimator or predictor of fa is

(5)

If tP = I, the predictor is

(6)

When r is also diagonal, the jth element of (6) is 'Yj/(1 + 'YJ) times the jth
element of (1). In the conditional distribution of xa given fa (for tf> = J)

(7) S ( f: Ifa ) = ( I + r) -! r fa ,

(8) .fi(f: Ifa ) = (I + r) -1 r (I + r) 1

PROBLEMS 593

(9) $ [ (i: - fa) (fa* - fer) I Ifa ] = (I + r) - I ( r + fer f~ ) ( I + r) - I ,

(10) $(/: - fer )(i;: - fa)' = (I + r) -I.

This last matrix, describing the mean squared error. is smaller than (2)
describing the unbiased estimator. The estimator (5) or (6) is a Bayes
estimator and is appropriate when fa is treated as random.

rROBLEMS

14.1. (Sec. 14.2) Identijicatio/l by U'.\. LL:"t

A- (0 Nil)
- X(I) AI) ,

where C is nonsingular. Show that

AC= (~~ (1\

implies

ell
C= ( o

if and only if NI) is of rank m - I.

14.2. (Sec. 14.3) For p =:;, m = 1. and A = A. prove 10,;1 = n;~ I( A~ /1]1,,).
14.3. (Sec. 14.3) The EM algorithm.

(a) Iff and U are normal and f and X are obseIVed, show that the likelihood
function based on (xl,.fl), ... ,(x,v,J\,) is
594 fACfOR ANALYSIS

(b) Sho\\. thai when the factor scores are included as data the sufficient set of
statistics is X, j, C u = C,

1 N _
C tf = N L (xa-i)(fa-f)',
cr= I

N
CfJ'= ~ L (fa-j)(f,,-j)'.
a=\
(c.:l Show that the conditional expectations of the covariances in (b) given
X=(xl' .... x N ), A, «1>, and 'I' are

C:[= $(C.rrIX, A,«I>,W)=Cn(W+A«I>A·)-IA«I>,

ct· = $( CffIX, A, «1>, '1') = «I> A '('I' + A «I> A ') -ICxX<W + A«I>A') -I A«I>

+ «I> - «I> A '('I' + A«I>A') -I A«I>.

(d) Show that the maximum likelihood estimators of A and 'I' given «I> = 1 are

A~ -- C* C*-I ,
.,[ [[

~ = C*xx - C*
x[ C*-l
[[ C*'
x['
CHAPTER 15

Patterns of Dependence;
Graphical Models

15.1. INTRODUCTION

An emphasis in multivariate statistical analysis is that several measurements

on a number in i.ndividuals or objects may be correlated, and the methods
developed in this book take account of that dependence. The amollnt of
association between two variables may be measured by the (Pearson) correla~
tion of them (a symmetric measure); the association between one variable
and a set may be quantified by a multi.ple correlation; and the dependence
between one set and another set may be studied by criteria of independence
such as studied in Chapter 9 or by canonical correlations. Similar measures
can be applied in conditional distributions. Another kind of dependence
(asymmetrical) is characterized by regression coefficients and related mea-
sures. In this chapter We study models which involve several kinds of
dependence or more intricate patterns of dependence.
A graphical model in statistics is a visual diagram in which observable
variables are identified with points (verlices or nodes) connected by edges and
an associated family of probability distributions satisfying some indepen-
dences specified by the visual pattern. Edges may be undirected (drawn as
line segments) or directed (drawn as arrows). Undirected edges have to do
with symmetrical dependence and independence, while directed edges may
reflect a possible direction of action or sequence in time. These indepen-
dences may come from a priori knowledge of the subject matter or may
derive from these or other data. Advantages of the graphical display include

An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

595
596 [>A·lTIc.RN~ 01· DEPIc.NLJENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

ease of comprehension, particularly of complicated patterns, ease of elicita-

tion of expert opinion, and ease of comparing probabilities.
Use of such diagrams goes back at least to tlle work of the geneticist
Sewall Wright (1920, (1934), who used the term "path analysis." An elabo-
rate algebra has been developed for graphical models. Specification of
independences reduces the number of parameters to be determined. Some of
these independences are known as Markov properties. In a time series analysis
of a Markov process (or order 0, for example, the future of the process is
considered independent of the past when the present is given; in such a
model the correlation between a variable in the past and a variable in the
future is determined by the correlation between the present variable and the
variable of the immediate future. This idea is expanded in several ways.
The family of probability distributions associated with a given diagram
depends on the properties of the distribution that are represented by the
graph. These properties for diagrams consisting of undirected edges (known
as undirected graphs) will be described in Section 15.2; the properties for
diagrams consisting entirely of directed edges (known as directed graphs) in
Section 15.3; and properties of diagrams with both types of edge.s in Section
15.4. The methods of statistical inference will be given in Section 15.5.
In this chapter we assume that the variables have a jOint nonsingular
normal distribution; hence, the characterization of a model is in terms of the
covariance matrix and its inverse, and functions of them. This ~ssumption
implies that the variables are quantitative and have a positive density. The
mathematics of graphical models may apply to discrete variables (contingency
tables) and to nonnormal quantitative variables, but we shall not uevelop the
theory necessary to include them.
There is a considerable social science literature that has followed Wright's
original work. For recent reviews of this writing see, for example, Pearl
(2000) and McDonald (2002).

15.2. UNDIRECTED GRAPHS

A graph is a set of vertices and edges, G == (V, E). Each vertex is identified
with a random vector. ]n this chapter the random variables have a joint
normal distribution. Each undirected edge is a line connecting two vertices. It
is designated by its two end points; (u, v) is the same as (v, u) in an
undirected graph (but not in directed graphs).
Two vertices connected by an edge are called adjacent; if not connected by
an edge, they are called nonadjacent. In Figure 15.l(a) all vertices are
15.2 UNDIRECrED GRAPHS 597

jb
L Ii
.b

a. • a • a a
c c c c

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 15.1

nonadjacent; in (b) a and b ale adjacent; in (c) the pair a and b and the pair
a and c are adjacent; in (d) every pair of vertices are adjacent.
The family of (normal) distributions associated with G is defined by a set
of requirements on conditional distributions, known as Markov properties,
Since the distributions considered here are normal, the conditions have to do
with the covariance matrix ~ and its inverse A = ~-I, which is known as the
concentration matrix. However, many of the lemmas and theorems hold for
nonnormal distributions. We shall consider three definitions of Markov and
then show that they are equivalent.

Definition 15.2.1. The probability distributlOlI 011 a graph is pairn'ise

Markov with respect to G if for every pair of vertices (u, v) that are not a({iacent
Xu and Xu are independent conditional on all the other variables in the graph.

In symbols
(1)

where .1l means independence and V\ Cu, v) indicates the set V with II and v
deleted. The definition of pairwise Markov is that PUlJ V\II',I) = 0 for all pairs
for which (u, v) ff:. E. We may also write u.1l vI V\ Cu, v).
Let ~ and A >= ~ - I be partitioned as

(2) A= [A'4A
ABA

where A and B are disjoint sets of vertices, The conditional distribution of

XA given Xu is

(3)
The condition d covariance matrix is

( 4)
598 PATfERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

If A =(1. 2) and B = (3, ... , p), the covariance of XI and X 2 given X 3 , ••• , Xp
is al~.~ p in LA B = (a ],3 .. p), This is 0 if and only if AI2 = 0; that is, 'I A . B
'
is diagonal if and only if A A A is diagonal.

Theorem 15.2.1. If a distribution on a graph is pairwise Mar":ov, Aij = 0 for

(i, j) $. v.
Definition 15.2.2. The boundary of a set A, termed bd(A), consists of
those vertices not in A that are adjacent to A. The closure Of A, termed cl(A), k,'
Au bd(A).

Definition 15.2.3. A distribution on a graph is locally Markov if for every

vertex v the variable Xu is independent of the variables not in cl(B) conditional on
the boundary of v: in notation,

(5)

Theorem 15.2.2. The conditional independences

(6) X lL Y\Z, X lL ZIY

hold if and only if

(7) X lL(Y,Z).

Proof The relations (6) imply that the density of X, Y, and Z can be
written as

(8) f(x,y,z) =f(xlz)g(ylz)h(z)

= k(xly)l(zly)m(y).

Since g(y\z)h(z) = n(y, z) = l(z\y)m(y), (8) implies f(xlz) = k(xly), which in

turn implies fC xl z) = k( x\y) = p(x). Hence

(9) f(x,y,z) =p(x)n(y,z),

which is the density generating (7). Conversely, (9) can be written as either
form in (8), implying (7). •

Coronary 15.2.1. The relations

( 10) X lL Y\Z, W, XlLZ\Y,W

hold if and only If

(11 ) x lL(Y,Z)IW.
15.2 UNDIRECfED GRAPHS 599

The relations in Theorem 15.2.2 and Corollary 15.2.1 are sometimes called
the block independence theorem. They are based on positive densities, that is,
nonsingular normal distributions.

Theorem 15.2.3. A locally Markov distribution on a graph is pairwise

Markov.

Proof Suppose the graph is locally Markov (Definition 15.2.3). Let u and
v be nonadjacent vertices. Because v is not adjacent to u, it is not in bd(u);
hence,

(12)

The relation (12) can be written

(13) XII lL {Xl!' X v \[" .u.bd(U»)} Ibd( u).

Then Corollary 15.2.1 (X = XII' Y = Xl!' Z = ZV\[d(u).ul' W = X lxI(u) implies

(14)
•
Theorem 15.2.4. A pairwise Markov distribution on a graph is locally
Markov.

Proof Let V\ c1(u) = vJ U .. , U vn ' Then

which by Corollary 15.2.1 implies

(16)

Further, (16) and

(17)
imply

(18)

This procedure leads to

(19)
•
A third notion of Markov, namely, global, requires some definitions.
600 PATIERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GI~APHICAL MODELS

Definition 15.2.4. A path from B to C is a sequence VII, vp v 2 , •• •• Vn of

adjacent vertices with Vo E B and V" E C.

Definition 15.2.5. A set S separates sets Band C if S, B, and C are

disjoint and every path from B to C intersects S.

Thus S separates Band C if for every sequence of vertices vo, VI' ... , vn
with Vo E B and v" E C at least one of VI"'" V,,-l is a vertex in S. Here B
and/or Care nonempty, but S can be empty.

Definition 15.2.6. A distribution on a graph is globally Markov if for every

tnplet of disjoint sets S, B, and C such that S separates Band C the vector
varillbles X B and Xc are independent conditional on Xs.

In the example of Figure 15.Hc), a separates band c. If Pbc.a = 0, that is,

Pbc - Pba Pac = 0, the distribution is globally Markov. Note that a set of
vertices is identified with a vector of variables.
The global Markov property puts restrictions on the possible (normal)
distributions, and that implies fewer parameters about which to make infer-
ences.
Suppose V=A u BuS, where A, B, and S are disjoint. Partition I and
A = I -I, the concentration matrix, as

(2Q)

The conditional distribution of (X~, X B)' given Y s is normal with covariance

matri'<

(21) l: _
(A.B) S -
[l:AA Il:AB ]_ [l:A'
IBA I ]l:-I[l:
SS SA
I SB ]
BB BS

~ [AAA AABr
ABA ABB

Theorem 15.2.5. If S separates A and B in a gr'lph with a globally Markov

distribution, A A B = 0.

Proof Because S separates A and B, every element u of A and every

element V of B are nonadjacent, for otherwise the path (u, v) would connect
15,2 UNDlRECfED GRAPHS 601

A and B without intersecting S, Thc glob~llly Markov property is that X I

and X B are uncorrelated in the conditional distribution, implying that 1\..1" Ill.'
is block diagonal and hence that AAB = O. •

Theorem 15.2.6. A distribution on a globally Markov graph is paindse

Markov.

Proof Let the set B be i, the set C be j not adjacent to i. and the set A
the rest of t he variables. Any path from B to C must inel ude elemt~nts of A,
Hence i is independent of j in the distribution conditioned on the other
variables. •

Theorem 15.2.7. A globally Markov family of distributions on a graph is

locally Markov.

Proof The boundary of a set B separates Band V\ d(B). •

Theorem 15.2.S. A pairwise Markov family of distributions on a graph is

globally Markov.

Proof Let A, B, and S be disjoint sets in a pairwise Markov grapll such

that S separates A and B. Let #(S) and #(V) uenole the nllrnbL'r~ of
vertices in S and V, respectively. If #( V) = #(.r;;) + 2, that is, V = A u BuS.
then there must be one vertex in each of A and B. and the pairwise Markm'
property is exactly the globally Markov property. The rest of the proof is a
backward induction on #(S). Suppose #( V) - #( S) > 2 and V = A u BuS.
Then either A Or B Or both have mOre than one vertex. Suppose A has more
than one vertex, and let u EA. Then S U u separates A \u and B, and
SUA separates u and B. By the induction hypothesis

(22) X" lL XBI (Xs, X.4 \1I)'

By Corollary 15.2.1

(23)

Now suppose Au BUS c V. Let u E V\ (A U BUS). Then S U /{ separates

A and B. By the induction hypothesis

(24)

Also, either A U S separates u and B or BuS separates A and II.

(Otherwise there would be a path from B to u and from u to A that would
602 PAITERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

not inters~ct SJ H A U S sepa 'ales II al1d B,

(25)
Then Corollary 15.2.1 applied to (19) and (20) implies
(26)

from which we derive X,4 lL 1'/111',\" •

Theorems 15.2.3, 15.2.5, and 15.2.6 show that the three Markov properties
are equivalent: anyone implies the other two. The proofs here hold fairly
generally, but in this chapter a nonsingular mult'variate normal distribution is
assumed: thus all densities are positive.

Definition 15.2.7. A graph G = (V, E) is complete if and only if every two

vertices ill V are adjacellt.

The definition implies that the graph specifies no restrIction on the

covariance matrix of the multivariate normal distribution.
A subset A ~ V induces a subgraph G._I = (A, E/I), where the edge set EA
includes all edges (u, v) of G with (u, v) E E, where u EA and v EA.
A subset of a graph is complete if and only if every two vertices in A are
adjacent in E,I'

Definition 15.2.8. A clique is a maximal complete set of vertices .

.. Maximal"' means that if another vertex from V is added to the set, the set
will 110 longer be complete. A clique can be constructed by starting with one
vertex. say VI' If it is not adjacent to any other vertex, VI alone constitutes a
clique. If u: is adjacent to VI [( VI' v:!) E E], continue constructing a clique
with VI and v'2 ill it until a maximal complete subset is obtained. Thus every
vertex is a member of at least one clique, and every edge is included in at
least one clique.

Lelllma IS.2.1. If t/'e distriiJlltio/l of X I' is Markov, it is detemlined by the

sct or lIla~illal distriblltiolls of aI/ diqlles.

In Figure 15.I(a) each of a, b, (' is a clique; in (b) each of (a, b) and c is a

clique: in (c) eaeh of (a,b) and (a,d i:-: a clique; in (d) (a,b,c) is a clique,

Definition 15.2.9. The density f(X v ) factorizes with respect to G if there

are llollllegativejil1lctiolls gc(Xc ) dcpcllding 011 tire complete suhgraphs such that
( 27)
C (.'omrkl~
15.2 UNDlRECfED GRAPHS 603

Since it suffices to consider only cliques, an alternative factorization is

(28)

These functions gc(Xc ) and gc"(Xc .) are not necessarily densities Or

conditional' densities. The problems of statistical inference may be reduced to
the problems of the complete subgraphs Or cliques.

Definition 15.2.10. A decomposition of a graph is formed by three disjoint

sets A, B, S if V = Au BUS, S separates A and B, and S is complete.

In this definition one or mOrf,., of the sets A. B, and S may be empty. If

both A and Bare nonempty. the decomposition is termed proper.

Definition 15.2.11. A graph is decomposable if it is complete or if there is

a proper decomposition (A, B. S) into decomposable subgraphs GAuS and
G 8US '

Theorem 15.2.9. Suppose A, B, S decomposes G = (V, E). Then the density

of X II factorizes with respect to G if and only if its marginal densities fA U sexAU s)
and f8 U S(XB U s) factorize and the densities satisfy

(29)

Proof. Suppose that f vex v) factorizes as

(30)

Because A, B, S decomposes G, every clique is either a subset of A uS or a

subset of BuS. Let .91 denote the cliques that are subsets of A US, and EJB
those that are subsets of B. Then fv(x v ) = h(xAus)k(xBus), where

(31)

(32)

Integration of (30) with respect to Xc for C E EJB\.Sif gives

(33)
604 PATrERNS OF' DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

.
difficulty grade recommendation

.-----.... 3 - - - - - - - + •4
1
~

2.
~
---------+~ • 5
IQ SAT
Figure 15.2

where

(34)
•
In turn fAUS<X AUS ) and fBus(x BUS ) can be factorized, leading to (28).

15.3. DIRECTED GRAPHS

We now include relations with a direction; the measurement represented by

one vertex u may precede the measurement represented by another vertex v.
In the graph this directed edge is displayed as an arrow pOinting from u to v;
in notation it appears as (u, v), which is now distinguished from (v, u). The
precedence may indicate the times of measurement, for example, the precipi-
tation on two successive days, or may indicate possible causation.
The difficulty of an examination XI may affect the grade of a student x 3;
the grade is also affected by his/her IQ x 2 • In turn the grade of the student
influences the quality of a letter of recommendation X4; the IQ is a factor in
performance on the SAT, xs' See Figure 15.2. (We shall draw figures so that
the action proceeds from left to right.)
A graph composed entirely of directed edges is called a directed graph. A
cycle, such as 1 - 2, 2 - 3, 3 - 1, is hard to interpret and hence is usually
ruled out. A directed graph without a cycle is an acyclic directed graph (ADG
or DAG), also known as an acyclic digraph. All directed graphs in this
chapter are acyclic.
An acyclic directed graph may represent a recursive linear system. For
example, Figure 15.2 could represent

(1)
(2)
15.3 DIRECfED GRAPHS 605

(3) X3 = f3:11 XI + f3 32 X 2 + u 3 ,
( 4) X 4 = f3 43 X ~ + II 4 •
(5) X5 = f3 52 X 2 + 115'

where u I' u 2 ' ll;., U 4 ' u 5 arc mutlJally i ndepe nd~n t 1I nohseIVcu variahlcs.
Wold (1960) called such models causal chaills. Note that the matrix of
coefficients is lower triangular. In general X, may depend on Xl ..... X, I '
The recursive linear system (J) to (5) ge nerates the reeur~ive factorizatilHl

(6) fm45(xl,x2,x;.,x4'x~)

= fl( Xl )fz( x 2) f3112 (x;.lx I ' X2)1.. 1113 (x .. lx;.)f'112.U (x ~ Ix 2)'

A directed graph indu~es a partial order.

Definition 15.3.1. A partial ordering of all acyclic directed graph II ::; v is

defined by the existence of a directed pa th

(7) u = Vo ---+ V I ---+ '" ---+ VII = v.

The partial ordering satisfies the conditions en

reflexive: v::; v: (Ii) transitive:
u ::; v and v::; w imply u ::; J.1,; and (iij) antisymmetric: u::; v and /)::; II imply
u = ,). Further, u ::; v and u =1'= v defines II < V.

Definition 15.3.2. Ifu ---+ v, then II ix a parent of v, termed u = pa(u). alld

v is a child of u, tenned v = ch(u). III symhol.~

(8) pa( v) = {w E V\vl w ---+ v},

(9) ch( u) = {w E V\ u Iu ---+ w} .

In the graph displayed in Figure 15.2 we have 0,2) = pa(3), :3 ,= pa(4).

2 = pa(5), 3 = ch(1, 2), 4 = ch(3), and 5 = ch(2).

Definition 15.3.3. If u < v, thell v is a descendant of u.

(10) de(u)={vlu<v},

and u is an ancestor of v,

(11 ) an(v) = {ulu < v}.

The set of nondescendants of u is Nd(u) = V\de(ll). and the set of strict
nondescendants is nd(u) = Nd(u)\u. Define An(A) = an(A) uA.
606 PATIERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

pa(v)

C.w
w

•
Figure 15.3

Note that

(12) pa(v) ~an(v) ~nd(v).

In our study of undirected graphs we considered three Markov properties

independently defined and then showed that a graph with one Markov
property also has the other two. In the case of acyclic directed graphs we
shall define three similar Markov properties, but the definitions are different
because they take account of the direction of action or influence.

Definition 15.3.4. A distribution on an acyclic directed graph G is pairwise

Markov if fOl every' v E Vand W E nd(v)\ pa(v)

(13 ) vlLwlnd(v)\w.

In t'llmp,lrit>on with Definition 15.2.1 for undirected graphs, note that

attention is paid only to vertices in nd(v); since pa(v) is the effective
boundary of v, the vertices wand v are nonadjacent. (See Figure IS.3.) Note
also that the conditioning set inclues the parents of v, but not the children
(which are descendants).

Definition 15.3.5. A distribution On an acyclic directed graph is locally

Markov if

(14) vlL[nd(v)\pa(v)]lpa(v).

In the definition of locally Markov the conditioning is only on the parents

of [', but in the definition of pairwise Markov the conditioning is on all of the
other nondescendants. Thest. features correspond to Definitions lS.2.1 and
IS.2.3 for undirected graphs.
In Figure 15.2. we have llL2.S, 3lLS12. 4lL1.2.SI3, and SlL1,3,412.
In an undirected graph constructed by replacing arrows in Figure lS.2 by
15.3 DlRECfED GRAPHS 607

lines (directed edges by undirected edges), a locally Markov distribution on

the graph would include the conditional independences llL213, l,2lL413,
1,3, 4lL 5. In the interpretation of the arrow indicating time sequence X4
relates to the future of (X2 , X 3 ); the future cannot be conditioned on.
As another example, consider an autoregressive time series Yo, Yl' .. ·' YT
defined by

(15) Yt = PYt-l + up i = 1,2, ... , T,

where Uh ••• ' UT are independent N(O, 0' 2) variables and Yo has distrioution
N[O, 0'2/0 - p)2)]. In this case given Yt. the future Yf+l> ... , YT is indepen-
dent of the past Yo" .. ,Yt-I'

Theorem 15.3.1. A locally Markov distribution on an acyclic directed graph

is pairwise Markov.

Proof The proof is the same as the proof of Theorem 15.2.3 for undi-
rected graphs. •

Theorem 15.3.2. A pairwise Markov distribution on an acyclic directed

graph is locally Markov.

Proof The proof is the same as the proof of Theorem 15.2.4. •

Another Markov property is based on numbering the vertices in an order

reflecting the direction of the action or the partial ordering induced.

Definition 15.3.6. An enumeration of the elements of V is coiled well-

numbered if i < j => v) 4:. v" or equivalently v) < VI => j < i.

Theorem 15.3.3. A finite ordered set (V,:s;) admits at least one well-
numbering.

Definition 15.3.7. An element a* E V is maximal (or terminal) if a* :s; b

=> a* = b.

Lemma 15.3.1. A finite, partially ordered set (V, :s;) has at least one
maximal element a* .

Proof of Lemma. The proof is by induction with a* = a if #(V) = 1.

Assume the lemma holds for #(V) = n, and consider #(V) = n + 1. Then
V = aU (V\a) for any a E V. Since #(V\a) = n, V\a has a maximal ele-
ment, say li. Then either a :s; a and so a is maximal, or li 4:. a and so a is
maximal. •
608 PATTERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

Proof of Theorem 15,3.3. We shall construct a well-numbering. Let v* be a

maximal element; define Vn = v*. In V\ v" let v* * be a maximal element;
define vn _ 1 = v**. At the jth stage let v*** be a maximal element in
V\ (vn , ••• , Vn-;+I); define vn -) v***, j = 3",., n - L Then VI =
V\ (VI" ., , Vn -I)' This construction satisfies Definition 15.3.6. •

The well-numbering of V a:.-; implie:.-; that in any directed path

V(I), ••• , V(II)

u = V(IO) -l> V(ll) -l> '" - . V(I.) = v the indices satisfy io ~ i l .$ ".$ in' The
well~numbering is not necessarily unique. Since V is finite, a maximal
element can be found by comparing v, and v} for at most n(n - 1)/2 pairs.

Definition 15.3.8. Let {VI>"" vn } be a well-numbering (~f the acyclic di-

rt~cted graph G. A disldhUlioll Oil G is well-numbered Markov willI respect to
this well-numbering if

(16) vf JL ( VI,' . " V, I) \ pa( v() I pa( v,), i=3, ... ,I1.

Apparently the definition depends on the choice of well-numbering, but

this is not the case, by Theorem 15.3.4.

Theorem 15.3.4. A distribution on an acyclic directed graph that is well-

numbered Markov is locally Markov.

The definition of the global Markov property depends on relating the

directed graph to a corresponding undirected graph.

Definition 15.3.9. The moral graph om

of an acyclic directed graph 0 =
(V, E) is the undirected graph C()J1Stl71('fcd hy addilLg (lLlldirected) edges between
parents of each vertex v E V and replacing every directed edge by an undirected
edge.

In the ,largon of graph theory, the parents of a vertex are "married."

Definitlol1 15.3.10. A distribution on en acyclic directed graph is globally

Markov if A JL BI S for every A, B, and S such that S separates A and B in
[OAn(A U E us]m.

Theorem 15.3.5. A distribution on an acyclic directed graph that is globally

Markov is locally Markov.
15,3 DIRECfED GRAPHS 609

Proof For any v E V let pa(v) = S in the definition of globally Markov,

Let v =A and nd(v)\pa(v) = B. A vertex WE nd(v)\pa(v) is a vertex in
An(AUBUS). Let 7T=W=VI),VI""'V,,=v be a path from W to p in
[GAn(A U B US)1I1 = [GNd(u)m, If (v,,_ I' v,,) corresponds to a directed edge
(vn - 1 -+ v,,) in [GNd(u)]m, then vll - 1 E pa(v) = Sand pa(v) separates
nd(v)\pa(v) and v. [The directed edge (V,,_I +-v,,) implies LJ,,_I Ede(v).]
•
Theorem 15.3.6. A distribution on an acyclic directed graph that is locally
Markov is globally Markov.

The proof is very lengthy and is omitted,

Recursive Factorization
The recursive aspect of the acyclic directed graph permits a systematic
factorization of the density. Use the construction of Theorem 15,3.4. Let
n = I VI ; then v" i.s a maximal element of V. Then
(17)

Thus (in the normal case)

(18) @"Xu.!pa(v,,) = a" + BnXpa(l'r)'

(19) Gf( X", - @"Xu.)(Xu. - ct Xv.)' = In'

At the jth step let v,,_) +I be a maximal element of V\ (vn , .. , , v,,_, +: ), Then

(20)

Thus
(21)

(22)

The vector XUn _ + 1 is independent of pa(v,,_j+I)' The relations (18) to (22)

I
can be written as generating equations. Let

(23)
(24)

(25) x" _ I = a" _ 1 + B" - I ( XiI' , , . , I'" - 2 ) + E" -

I I ,

(26) x" = a 1/ + B" ( XiI' , , . , x;, _I )' + f" ,

610 PA TIERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

whae E 1, ..• , Ell are independent random vectors with 0E j Ej = I). In matrix
form (23) to (26) are

( 27) Bx= a +E,

where

1 0 0 0 El
-B21 1 0 0 E2

B= -B 31 - B;.2 1 0 , E= E3

a" -B"I -B,,2 -B"3 'I E"

and Bp = 0 if i <j - k,- Because the determinant of B is 1, (27) can be

i
solved for

(29)

The matrix r -I is also lower triangular.

15.4. CHAIN GRAPHS

A chain graph includes both directed and undirected edges; however, only
certain patterns of vertices and edges are permitted. Suppose the set of
vertices V of the graph G = (V, E) can be partitioned into subsets V =
V(1) U ", u V( T) so that within a subset the lertices are joined by undi-
rected edges and directed edges join vertices in different subsets. Let greG)
be the set of vertices 1, ... , T and let $(G) be the (directed) edge set such
that T -+ (J" if and only if there is at least one element U E V( T) and at least
one element v E V( (J") such that u -+ v is in E, the edge set of G. Then
~v(G) = [:T(G), J."(G)] is an acyclic directed graph; we can define pa q>( T),
etc., for ~ 1) (G).
Let XT=- (X"lll E V(T)}. Within a set the vertices form an undirected
graph rdative to tht: probability distribution conditional on thc pa~t (that is,
earlier sets). See Figure 15.4 [Lauritzen (1996)] and Figure 15.5.
We now define the Markov properties as specified by Lauritzen and
Wermuth (1989) and Frydenberg (1990):

(CD The distribution of X T , T= 1, ... , T, is locally Markov with respect to

the acyclic directed graph 0'J(G); that is,

(1) (J" E nd £Ii ( T) \ pa !y> ( T).

15,4 CHAIN GRAPHS 611

V(1)
I:
V(3)

V(2)
Figure 15.4. A chain graph.

V(1) ~ /' V(3)

V(2)
Figure 15.5. The corresponding induced acyclic directed graph on V VO) U V(2) U V(3).

(C2) For each T the conditional distribution of Xr given Xpa til(T) is globally
Markov with respect to the undirected graph on V( T).
(C3)

Here bdG(U) = paG(U) U nbG(U). A distribution on the chain graph G that

satisfies (Cl), (C2), (C3) is LWF block recursive Markov.
In Figure 15.6 pag.'!(T)={T-l,T-2} and nd9'l(T)\pa~(T)={T-3,T-
4, .. .,I}. The set U={u,w} is a set in VeT), and pU(j(U) is the set in
V(T-I) U V(T- 2) that includes paG(u) for u E U; that is, paG(U) = {x,y}.

pao(U)

V('t-l) V(-r:)

Figure 15.6. A chain graph.

612 PATTERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

1 3

2 4

V(1) V(2)
Figure 15.7. A chdin graph.

Andersson, Madigan, and Perlman (2001) have proposed an alternative

Markov property (AMP), replacing (C3) by

(C3*)

(3)

In Figure 15.6, Xu for a vertex v in V( 'T 2) u V( 'T - 1) is conditionally

independent of Xu [u E U r; V( 'T)] when regressp.d on Xpaa(U) = (Xx. X y )'
The difference between (C3) and (C3*) is that the conditioning in (C3) is on
bdG(U) = paG(U) U nbG(U), but the conditioning in (C3*) is on paG(U)
only. See Figure 15.6. The conditioning in (C3*) is on variables in the past.
Figure 15.7 [Andersson, Madigan, and Perlman (2001)] illustrates the differ-
ence between the L WF and AMP Markov properties:

( 4) LWF:

(5) AMP:

Note that in (5) Xl and X4 are conditionally independent given X 2 ; the

conditional distribution of X4 depends on pa(v.), but not X 3 •
The AMP specification allows a block recursive equation formulation.
In the example in Figure 15.7 the distribution of scalars Xl and X 2
[Vi' v2 E V(1)] can be specified as

( 6)
(7)

where (6 1,62) has an arbitrary (normal) distribution. Since X3 depends

15,5 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 613

directly on Xl and X 4 depends directly on X 2 • we write

(8)

(9)

where (e3' e4) has an arbitrary distribution independent of ( el' e), and
hence independent of (X" X 2 ),
In general the AMP model can be expressed as (26) of Section 15.3,

15.5. STATISTICAL INFERENCE

15.5.1. Normal Distribution

Let XI"'" x N be N obsetvations on X with distribution N(fJ-, I), Let i =
N-l'[~=lxa and S=(N-l)-''[~'=,(xa-i)(x(~-i)'=(N-I) 'lL'~_IX"X;,
- W-xr']. The likelihood is

The above form shows t'1at i and S are a pair of sufficient statistics for fJ-
and I, and they are independently distributed, The interest in this chapter is
on the dependences, which depend only on the covariance matrix ~. not fJ-,
For the rest of this chapter we shall suppress the mean, Accordingly. we
suppose that the parent distribution is NCO, I) and the sample is X I' . , , , X'I),
and S = (l/n)'[:=l xa x~. Tt e likelihood function can be written

(2)

= ex p [ --we A) - i .t
1=1
AI/'I/ - E
1<1
AIII II ],

where A = (Ai') = I-I, T= (t,,) = L~=lxax~, and W(A)= ~plllog(21i)

- ~n 10g1AI,
The likelihood is in the exponential familj with canonical parameter .\
and statistic T. The maximum likelihood estimator of I with no restriction is
i = S = (l/n)T. Since A = I-I is a 1-to-1 transformation of I, the maxi-
mum likelihood estimator of A of A = i-I,
614 PATTERNS OF DEPI~NDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

15.5.2. Covariance Selection Models

In undirected graphs many of the models involve zero restrictions on ele·
ments of A. Dempster (1972) studied such models and introduced the term
covariance selection. When the (directed) graph satisfies the pairwise Markov
°
condition, A'l = for (i, j) ~ E. We assume here thr!t the graph satisfies this
Markov condition. Further we assume n ~ p; then S is positive definite with
probability l.
The likelihood function is

(3) (27T)-PI2IAI-n/2exP(1 EAii+ E Aifns1j ) ,

/>=1 H,j)EE

where A satisfies the condition All = 0, (t, j) ~ E. In ihis form the canonical
parameters are All"'" App and AI), (I, j) E E. The canonical variables are
sn,""spp and S'l' (i,j)EE; these form a sufficient set of statistics. To
maximize the likelihood function we differentiate (3) with respect to Ali'
i = L .... p, and All' (i, j) EE, to obtain the equations (4) and (5).

Theorem 15.5.1. The maximum likelihood estimator of I in the model (3)

is given by
(4) i=jor (i,n EE,

(5) At) 0, i :1= j and (i, j) ~ E,

where A = i-I.
This result follows from the general theory of exponential families. See
Lauritzel1 (1996), Theorem 5.3 and Appendix D.l.
Here we shall show that for a decomposable graph the equations (4) and
(5) have a unique positive definite solution by developing Gon algorithm for its
computation. We follow Speed and Kiiveri (1986).

Theorem 15.5.2. Let L and M be p X P positive definite matrices. There

exists a unique positive definite matrix K such that

(6) i = j or (i,j) EE,

(7) k'l i:l= j and (i,n ~E,

The proof of Theorem 15.5.2 depends on several lemmas. In the maximum

likelihood estimation L S, M = I Or any other diagonal matrix, and K = I.
15.5 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 615

To develop this subject we use the Kullback information. For a pair of

multivariate normal distributions N(O, P) and N(O. R) define

I n(xIO,P)
@
(8) I( PR
I ) =0p ogn(xIO,R)

:. ~HlogIPR-11 +tr(I~PR-l)].

Lemma 15.5.1. Suppose P and R are positive definite. Then:

(i) I(PIR) > 0, P:-I= R, and I(PIP) = o.

(iO If {Pnl and (Rnl are sequences of positive definite matrices such that
I(Pnl.l.~n) -+ 0, then PnR-;.1 -+ I.

Proof (i) Let the roots of I P ~ sRI = 0 be Sl ~ ... ~ sp' Then

p
(9) loglPR-11 +tr(I~PR-l)= E(logsi+1~s;)~0,
1=1

and (9) is 0 if and only if S I = ... = sp = 1.

(ii) Let the roots of IPn ~sRIlI =0 be sl(n)~ ... ~sin). Then I(PnIRn)
-+ 0 implies [Sl(n), ... , s/n)] -+ 0, ... ,1), which implies that PnR~ 1 -+ I .

•
Lemma 15.5.2. Let

( to) R12]
R22 •

Then

CD The matrix

(11 )

(12)

(ii) I(PIR) = I(PIQ) + I(QIR).

616 PATTERNS 9F DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

Proof. (i) Let

(13)

Then I=Q-IQ can be solved for S=Pii 1 +RI2(R 22 )-lR21; Q=(Q-l)-l

follows from Theorem A.3.3. Then (ii) follows from

I-P R-l
(14) PQ-I =PR-1 + [. ~I It

(15) trPQ-) +trQR) trPR- 1 +trlp'

•
Lemma 15.5.2 provides the solution to the problem of finding a matrix Q,
given positive definite matrices P and R, such that

( 16) (i,n E {1,,,.,t},

(17) (i,n ~ {l, ... ,t}.
We now develop an iterative method to find K to sati<;fy (6) and (7), thus
proving Theorem 15.5.2. Suppose E Cl U ... U cm' where £.', •... , C m are the
m cliques of a decomposable graph G = (V, E). Let Kill = M- 1. Define
recursively Kn = (kl/n» such that

(18) kIJ(n) = II)' i, j E Cn mod m ,

(19) kiJ(n) = kiJ(n -1),

By Lemma 15.5.2, Kn is uniquely determined. (The algorithm cycles through

the cliques.) By construction

(20)

Summation of (20) from 1 to q gives

q
(21) I(LIKo) = l( LIKq) + E l( K)IK,_d·
j 1

Since I(LIKql ~ 0, I:.J=11(K,IK,_I) is bounded and I(KJIKj _ 1 ) ~ 0 as n ~ 00.

The set (K-III(LIK).sI(LIK o)} is strictly convex.
Consider the vector sequence (K rm + I"'" K rm + m ) with index, (n = rm).
It has a convergent subsequence {,(i)}; that is, (Kmr(i)+ p .. ., Kmr(i)+m) con-
vergt:s to (K~, ... , K!). say. Since I(KjIKJ_1) ~ 0, KJK;} I ~ I. Then the
15.5 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 617

- -:- - - - - -

Figure 15.8. Diagram or Cl and Cc [or c 1 U C2 = E.

matrix Kmr(I)+jK;;,!(,)+)_ t ~ I, j = 2, ... , m. which implies Ki = ... = K;;' =

K, say. Note that {i,jli,j$E} satisfies i,j$c" i=l, ... ,m. Hence K'I
satisfies (7), n = 0,1, ... , and K does too. Further, k,}ml'(i) + r) satisfies
(18) i,j E c , and K does, too. Figure 15.8 diagrams the sets for (", = (i, j).
i,j=l, ... ,t, and c 2 =(i,j), i,j=u,u +l, ... ,p, Ll <to
The procedure allows for construction of a multivariate normal distribu-
tion with arbitrary marginal distributions over the cliques C I' ... , C m , provided
l:hat the specified marginal distributions are consistent.
Theorem 15.5.2 provides a proof of the existence and uniqueness of the
maximum likelihood estimators.
The equatk,n (12) is an updating equation. When Q-l =K;,l and R- 1 =
K; ~ 1> the entries in K; ~ 1 not in c" mod '" remain unchanged.
Dempster (1972) also proposes some iterative methods for finding K
satisfying kr;=l,), (i,j) ED, and k"=m", (i,j)fl-D. The entropy of
n(xl 0, P) IS

(22) $p 10gn(xI0,p) = -~(plog21i-p-logIPI).

Note that I II = nf=1 o)RI, where R = (p,,). Given that a" = s", the selec-
tion of PI; to maximize the entropy of the fitted normal distribution satisfying
the requirements also minimizes IRI [Demspter (1972)].
618 PATIERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODEl.}

15.5.3. Decomposition of Covariance Selection Models

An undirected graph is decomposable if the graph is formed by three disjoint
sets A, B, C, where V = A u B U C, A and Bare nonempty, C separates A
and B, and C is complete. Then if Xv is globally Markov ,\lith respect to G,
we have X A II XBIX c ,

AAC]
(23) ABC,
Acc

(24)

and

(25)

The maxImum likelihood estimator of I can be constructed from the

maximum likelihood estimators of IAA,C, IABo C' I BB -C ' i3(ABl'C) and Icc·
If there is no restriction on I, the maximum likelihood estimator of I is

(26) S(ABlC] = S
S CC ABC'

where

SAA C
(27) S(AB)'C = [ S
BkC

If the restriction (25) is imposed, the maximum likelihood estimator is (26)

with SA B'C replaced by 0 to obtain

A [(SAA'C
(28) I w
= 0

The matrix S(AB) C has tht: Wishart distribution W[I(ABl'C' n - (PA + PB)]'
where 11.-1 and PH arc the number of componcnts of X A and X n, respectively
15.5 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 619

(Section 8.3). The matrix B(AB).e=S(AB)eSC~ conditional on (XCl, ... ,Xen )

= Xc has a normal distribution, the covariance of which is given by

(29) L],
and Sec has the Wishart distribution W(I ee , n). The matrix S( AB).e and the
matrix B(A8)'e' are independent (Chapter 8).
Consider testing the null hypothesis (25). This is testing the null hypothesis
*'
~jlB.e = 0 against the alternative I A8 .e O. Th: determinant of (26) is
1~nl = ISAB.el . 1Sec! ; the determinant of(28) is IIJ ISAAI ·IS8B I ·ISed·
The likelihood ratio criterion is

(3D)

Since the sample covariance matrix S( A 8).e has the Wishart distribution
W[~(AB)'C' n - (PA + PB)]' where PA and PB are the numbers of components
of XA and X8 (Section 8.2), the criterion is, in effect, upA.PB,n-(PA+PB)'
studied in S0ctions 8.4 and 8.5.
As another example, consider the graph in Figure 15.9. Note that node 4
separates (1,2,3) and (5,6); nodes 1,4 separate 2 and 3; and node 4 separates
5 and 6. These separations imply three conditional independences:
(Xl' X 2 , X 3 ) JL(Xs, X 6 )IX4 • X 2 JL X 3 1(X 1, X 4 ), and Xs JL X 6 1X4 • In terms of
covariances these conditional independences are

~(123)(56H
1
(31) I(123)(56) 1(123)4 I;4 I4(56) = 0,
(32) I 2).(14) I23 - I2(14) 1(i~)(l4) 1(14)3 = 0,

(33) ~56'4 = ~56 - ~54 1 4} ~46 = O.

2 5

6
3
Figure 15.9
620 PAITERNSOF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

In view of (31) the restriction (32) can be written as

(34)

It will be convenient to reorder the subvectors as X 2 • X 3 , Xl' X5 • X6 • X4 to

write

S7:], S26 S24

(35) S=
S62 S66 S64
S42 S46 S44

[S2:" S~')
:
[S~)_,
+ : S44 [S42
=
S22>4 S(l("4 S64
[ S42 S4b I
= s(1...6)(1...6)"4 +s
S (2 •. 6)4 S-IS
44 4·(1...6) S(2">6)4]
[ 4{2 .•. 6) S44 -

The determinant of S is

(36)

If the condition (Xl' X 2 • X 3 )JL(X5 • X 6 )IX4 i<.; imposed, the maximum likeli-
hood estimator is (35) with S( 125)(56)'4 replaced by 0 to obtain

(37)

The determinant of (37) is

(38) 1S(231)(23 1)'4 I-I S(56)(56)'41-l S44l-

15.5 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 621

The likelihood ratio criterion for I(123)(56)'4 = 0 is

(39)

Here U(231)(56H has the distribution of UP1 +P,+P3,P5+Pb,n-p (Section 8.4) since
the distribution of S(L.6)(L.6H is W(I(~ .. 6)(~ ... 6H' n - p), independent
of 8 w
The first three rOWs and columns of S(l .. . 6)(2 ... 6)-4 constitute the matrix

(40)
S23'4

8 33 '4
S13'4

The determinant of (40) is

(41)

The estimator of S(231)(231)<4 with X 2 JL X 3 IX j > X4 imposed is (40) with S2:H~

replace by 0 to obtain

(42)
!::: '
( S21-4) ]

the determinant of which is

(43)
622 PA TIERNS OF DEPENDENCE; GRAPHICAL MODELS

The likelihood ratio criterion for I:lJ -14 = 0 is

II / 2
(44) U23-14 •

The statistic U:'I l~ has the distribution of Up2.1'~.II-( PI +Pl+P,+P4) (Section 8.4)
since S(23){:!3) 14 has the distribution W[I(23)(23)<14' n - (PI + pJ] independent
of S(l-t)(l-l)'
The estimator of IIS6)(~6H with I 56 ' 4 = 0 imposed is S(56)(56)-4 with S56'4
replaced by 0 to obtain

(45)

The likelihood ratio criterion for testing I51'l<4 = 0 is

(40)
( I S(56)(56)-4 1 ]11/2 = U /2 1/

\ IS55 --t 1'IS 66 . 4 ! 56'''' •

The statistic 11 5 4 has the distribution of Up;. Po,II-( P4 + P5 +P6) since S(56)(56)o4
(1

has the distribution WO:(56)(56H' Il - P4) independent of S44'

The estimator of I under three null hypotheses is (37) with S(23I)(23I)'4
replaced by (42) and S(56)(56H replaced by (45). The determinant of this
matrix is

The likelihood ratio criterion for testing the three null hypotheses is

( 48)

When the null hypothcscs are true, the factors L.h3l)(56)-4' U23 <14' and U56 -4 are
independ..;nt. Their distributions are discussed in Sections 8.4 and 8.5. In
particular the moments of these factors are given and asymptotic expansions
of distributions are described.

]5.5.4. Directed Graphs

We suppose that the vertices are well-numbered, 1, ... , n; the N observations
XII)" ,. . , x( N) are made on X = (X~, ... , XpY. The model is (22) to (25) or
(26) of Section 15.3. Let i=N-IL~=IX«t) and S=(N_l)-LL~_I(X«t)
xXx{a) x)'. The model (26) consists of Xl = a l + EI and n - 1 regressions
ACKNOWLEDGME:-'"'TS 623

(23) to (25). The vector al in Xl =a 1 ~f! is estimated by Xl" If pall':) is

vacuous: el2 is estimated by x~: if pa(v~) is not vacuous and Xpa(l;\ =X l • then
B 2 and a 2 are estimated by

(49) B, = at (x~.) -x,)(x".) -x,)'l.t, (x".) -i,)(x".) -i,)T',

(50) a 2 =i z +B 2 i,.
In general
N
(51) Bj:=o: E [xJ(cr) - i j ][ xpa(u})(cr) -xpa(u}l]'
a=I

(52) aj=xj+BJipa(u}).

Conditional on xpa(u})(crl' the distribution of these estimators is normal.

15.5.5. Chain Graphs

The condition (Cl) of Section 15.4 specifies that Xu lL XUIXpa!J>T for U E V( T)
and for VE V(<T), where <TEndq,(T)\paq)(T); that is, the past earlier than
pa~('T) is independent of the present. This condition corresponds to the
Markov prOperty in time series analysis. Thus Xu is in terms of deviations
from the regression of X T on Xp:t !)leT)

e.g' X 7 1X pa !p(T) = aT + BTXpa ,..(T)·

The vector a T and the matrix BT are estimated as for directed graphs.
The Markov property (C2) indIcates the analysis in terms of deviations
X'I' - aT - BTXP'l !.I'(T)" The estimation of the structurc of dependence within
V(T) is carried out as in Section 15.5.2.
The Markov property (C3*) specifies Xu lL XviXpaG(Vl for U E U ~ V(T)
and v Epa !2J(U) U nbG(U). The property is a restriction on the regression of
X T on Xpa !l!(T)"

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of this chapter drew heavily on lecture notes of Michael

Perlman. Thanks are also due Michael Perlman and Ingram Olkin for
reading drafts of the manuscript.
APPENDIX A

Matrix Theory

A.1. DEFINITION OF A MATRIX AND OPERATIONS

ON MATRICES

In this appendix we summarize some of the well-known definitions and

theorems of matrix algebra. A number of results that are not always con-
tained in books on matrix algebra are proved here.
An m X n matrix A is a rectangular array of real numbers

(1) A=

which may be abbrevIated (a ij ), i = 1,2, ... , m, j = 1,2, ... , n. Capitq.l bold-

face letters will be used to denote matrices whose elements are the corre-
sponding lowercase letters with appropriate subscripts. The sum of two
matrices A and B of the same numbers of rows and columns, respectively, is
defined by

(2)

The product of a matrix by a real number A is defined by

(3)

An Introduction to Multiuan'ate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

624
A.1 DEFINITION OF A MATRIX AND OPERATIONS ON MATRICES 625

These operations have the algebraic properties

(4) A+B=B+A,

(5) (A+B)+C A + (B+C).

(6) A + (-I)A (0).

(7) ( A + JL) A = AA + JLA.
(8) A(A + B) AA + AB,
(9) A( JLA) (AJL)A.

The matrix (0) with all elements 0 is denoted as O. The operation A + (-IB)
is denoted as A-B.
If A has the same number of columns as B has rows, that is, A = (a l ) ,
i = 1, ... , I, j = 1, ... , m, B = (bjk ), j = 1,,,., m, k 1, ... , n, then A and B
can be multiplied according to the rule

i=l,,,.,/, k=l"."n;

that is, AB is a matrix with 1 rows and n columns, the element in the ith row
and kth column being 'f.7=la 1j bJk • The matrix product has the properties

(11 ) (AB)C =A( BC),

( 12) A(B + C) =AB +AC,

(13) (A +B)C =AC + BC.

The relationships (11)-(13) hold provided one side is meaningful (i.e., the
numbers of rows and columns are such that the operations can be performed);
it follows then that the other side is also meaningful. Because of (11) we can
write

(14) (AB)C A(BC) ABC.

The product BA may be meaningless even if AB is meaningful, and even

when both are meaningful they are not necessarily equal.
The transpos' of the 1 x m matrix A = {aU> is defined to be the m X I
matrix A I which has in the jth rOW and ith column the element that A has in
626 MATRIX THEORY

the ith row and Jth column. The operation of transposition has the proper-
ties

(15) (A')' =A,

(16) (A +B)' =A' +B',
(17) (AB)' =B'A',

again with the restriction (which is understood throughout this book) that at
least one side is meaningful.
A vector x with m components Can be treated as a matrix with m rows
and one column. Therefore, the above operations hold for vectors.
We shall now be concerned with square matrices of the same size, which
r.:an be added and multiplied at wilL The number of rows and columns will be
taken to be p. A is called symmetric if A = A'. A particular matrix of
cunsiderable interest is the identity matrix

1 a a a
a 1 a a
( 18) /= a a 1 a = (Sj]),

a a a 1

where SI)" the Kronecker delta, is defined by

(19) i =},

=0, i -+ j.
The identity matrix satisfies

(20) LA=A1=A.

We shall write the identity as /p when we wish to emphasize that it is of

order p, A~sociated with any squnrc matrix A is thc determinant IAI, defined
by
JI
(21 ) IAI = L(-I/llJ .. "]I')na,}"
I =. I

where the summation is taken over all permutations (}[, ... , }p> of the set of
integers (1" .. , p), and JUI,' .. ' Jp ) is the number of transpositions required
to change (1,., ., p) into <il' ... '} p). A transposition consists of interchanging
two numbers, and it can be s~own that, although one can transform (1, ... , p)
into Cil" .. ' Jp ) by transpositions in many different ways, the number of
A.I DEFINITION OF A MATRIX AND OPERATIONS ON MATRICES 627

transpositions required is always even or always odd, so that (-l)!UI>.".Jp ) is

consistently defined. Then

(22) IABI = IAI·IBI.

Also
(23) IAI = IA'I.
A submatrix of A is a rectangular array obtained from A by deleting rows
and columns. A minor is the determinant of a square submatrix of A. The
minor of an element at; is the determinant of the submatrix of a square
matrix A obtained by deleting the ith row and jth column. The cofactor of
a'i' say A{j' is (_l)i+i times the minor of a,i' It follows from (21) that
p
(24) IAI = E a'jAij
j~l

If IAI >1= 0, there exists a unique matrix B such that AB = I. Then B is

called the inverse of A and is denoted by A -I. Let a hk be the element of A-I
in the hth row and k th col1Jmn. Then

(25)

The operation of taking the inverse satisfies

(26)
since

Also r 1 = 1 and A -IA = I. Furthermore, since the transposition of (27) gives

lA-IYA' =1, we have (A-1Y=(A,)-I.
A matrix whose determinant is not zero is called nonsingu.lar. If IAI >1= 0,
then the only solution to

(28) Az=O
is the trivial one z = 0 [by multiplication of (28) on the left by AI]. If
IAI = 0, there is at least one nontrivial solution (that is, z >1= 0). Thus an
equivalent definition of A being nonsingular is that (28) have only the trivial
solution.
A set of vectors Zl>'" > Zr is said to be linearly independent if there exists
no set of scalars cp ... ,c" not all zero, such that E.~_lCiZi=O. A qXp
628 MA fR IX THEOR Y

matrix D is said to be of rank r if the maximum number of linearly

independent columns is r. Then every minor of order r + 1 must be zero
(from the remarks in the preceding paragraph applied to the relevant square
matrix of order r + 1), and at least one minor of order r must be nonzero.
Conversely, if there is at least one minor of order r that is nonzerO, there is
at least one set of r columns (or rows) which is linearly independent. If all
minors of order r + 1 are zero, there cannot be any set of r + ) columns (or
rows) that are linearly independent, for such linear independence would
imply a nonzero minor of order r + 1, but this contradicts the assumption.
Thus rank r is equivalently defined by the maximum number of linearly
independent rows, by the maximum number of linearly independent columns,
or by the maximum order of nonzero minors.
We now consider the quadratic form

p
(29) x'Ax= ~ a/lx/x;,
i,; = 1

where x' = (Xl' ... ' Xp) and A = (a ij ) is a symmetric matrix. This matrix A
and the quadratic form are called positive semidefinite if x 'Ax ~ 0 for all x. If
x' Ax> 0 for all x"* 0, then A and the quadratic form are called positive
definite. In this book positive definite implies the matrix is symmetric.

Theorem A.I.I. If C with p rows and columns is positive definite, and if B

with p rows and q columns, q ~ p, is of rank q, then B'CB L~ positive definite.

Proof Given a vector y"* 0, let X = By. ,Since B is of rank q, By = x"* o.

Tben

(30) y'( B'CB) y = (By)' C( By)

=x'Cx> O.

The proof is completed by observing that B'CB is symmetric. As a converse,

we observe that B'CB is positive definite only if B is of rank q, for otherwise
there exists y"* 0 such that By = O. •

Corollary A.I.I. If C is positive definite and B is nonsingular, then B'CB is

positive definite.

Corollary A.I.2. if C is positive definite, then C- I is positi~ definite.

Proof C must be nonsingular; for if Cx = 0 for x"* 0, then x'Cx = 0 for

this x, but that is contrary to the assumption that C is positive definite. Let
A.I DEFINITION OF A MATRIX AND OPERATIONS ON MATRICES 629

B in Theorem A.l.I be C- 1• Then B'CB (C-I)'CC- 1 (C- 1Y. Transpos-

ing CC- 1 =1, we have (C-1YC' (C-tyC I. Thus C- I =(C- t )'. •

Corollary A.l.3. The q X q matrLt formed by deleting p - q rows of (l

positive definite matrix C and the corresponding p q columns of C is positive
definite.

Proof. Thi~ follows from Theorem A. L I hy forming B hy taking the p x p

identity matrix and deleting the columns corresponding to those deleted
from C. •

The trace of a square matrix A is defined as tr A = Ef-:.l a The following

II'

properties are \'~rified directly:

(JI) tr(A+B) trA+trB,

(32) tr An tr BA.

A square matrix A is said to be diagonal if ai, 0, i +- j. Then IAI =

TIf_tall' for in (24) IAI =a ll A 1t , and in turn All is evaluated similarly.
A square matrix A is said to be triangular if a I J = 0 for i > j or alterna-
tively for i <j. If a'j = 0 for i > j, the matrix is upper triangular, and, if
aij = 0 for i < j, it is lower triangular. The product of 1\\'0 upper triangular
matrices A, B is upper triangular, for the i, jth term (i > j) of .4B is
ELlaikb kJ = 0 since a1k = 0 for k < i and b kJ 0 for k > j. Similarly. the
product of two lower triangular matrices is lower triangular. The determinant
of a triangular matrix is the product of the diagonal elements. The inverse of
a nonsingular triangular matrix is triangular in the same way.

Theorem A.t.2. If A is nonsingular, there exists a nonsingular lower triangu-

lar matrix F such that FA = A* is nonsingular upper triangular.

Proof. Let A = Ai' Define recursively Ag = (a~f») Fg_ 1 A g_1' g 2, ... , p.

where Fg _ 1 :::: (fi~g-t)) has elements

(33) f·(g-I) = I j 1. ...• p,

JJ '
a(,~ - 1\
f(g-I) - - ~l
(34) I,g-I -
I.
a(g-I) I g .... ,p.
g-I.g- )

(35) f(g-lJ :::: 0 otherwise.

I J '
630 MATRIX THEORY

Then

(36) d!')
1/
= 0' i=j+1, ... ,p, j=l, ... ,g-l,

(37) I
ll.~)
')
= (I(g-II
I} • i=l, ... ,g-l, j=l, ... ,p,

(38) i,j=g, ... ,~?

Note that F = Fp _ I " •• , F, is lower triangular and the elements of A g in the

first g - 1 columns below the diagonal are 0; in particular A* = FA is upper
*"
triangular. From lAI 0 and IFg_1 1 = 1, we have lAg_II O. Hence *"
a\?, .• _, aig--2~)8 _ 2 are different from 0 and the last p - g columns of A g -1 can
be !1 umhered so a~g_-I~)g _ I =t= 0; then fr:~-=- \) is well defined. •

The equation FA =A* can be solved to obtain A = LR, where R =A* is

upper triangular and L = F- ' is lower triangular and has l's on the main
diagonal (because F is lower triangular and has l's on the main diagonal).
This is known as the LR decomposition.

Corollary A.l.4. If A is positive definite, there exists a lower triallgular

'1Ollsillgular ma un F such that FAF' is diagonal and positive definite.

Proof. From Theorem A.1.2, there exists a lower triangular nonsingular

matrix F such that FA is upper triangular aT d nonsingular. Then FAF' is
upper triangular and symmetric; hence it is diagonal. •

Corollary A.1.S. The determinant of a positive definite matrix A is positive.

Proof From the construction of F AF',

a(l)
11 0 0 0
a(2)
0 :!2 0 0
0 a(3)
(39) FAF'= 0 33 0

a(p)
0 0 0 pp

is positive definite, and hence aW>O, g=l,,,.,p, and O<IFAF'I =IFI'

lo4l-IFI = IAI. •
A.2 CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS 631

Corollary A.l.6. If A is positive definite, there exists a lower triangular

matrix G such that GAG' = I.

Proof. Let FAP' = D2, and let D be the diagonal matrix whose diagonal
elements are the positive square roots of the diagonal elements of D2. Then
C = D- 1 F serves the purpose. •

Corollary A.I.7 (Cholsky Decomposition). If A is positive definite, there

exists a unique lower triangular matrix T (to = 0, i < j) with positive diagonal
elements such that A = IT'.

Proof. From Corollary A. 1.6, A = G- 1(G,)-1, where G is lower triangular.

Then T = G- 1 is lower triangular. •

In effect this theorem was proved in Section 7.2 for A = W'.

A.2. CHARACTERISTIC ROOTS AND VECTORS

The characteristic roots of a square matrix B are defined as the roots of the
characteristic equation

(1) IB - All = o.
Alternative terms are latent roots and eigenvalues. For example, with

we have

The degree of the polynomial equation (1) is the order of the matrix Band
the constant term is IB I.
A matrix C is said to be orthogonal if C'C = I; it follows that CC' = I. Let
the vectors ;)" = (xl"'" xp) and y' = (Y1"'" yp) represent two points in a
p-dimensional Euclidean space. The distance squared between them is
D( x, y) = (x - y y(x - y). The transformation z = Cx Can be thought of as a
change of coordinate axes in the p-dimensional space. If C is orthogona!, the
632 MATRIX THEORY

tran!iformation is distance-preserving, for

(3) D( ex, Cy) = (Cy - Cx)' (Cy - CX)

= (y _X)'CIC(y -x) = (y -x)'(y -x) D(x, y).
Since the angles of a triangle are detennined by the lengths of its sides, the
transformation z = CX also preserves angles. It consists of a rotation together
with a possible reflection of one or more axes. We shall denote Ixlx by IIxll.

Theorem A.2.1. Given any .\ymmetric matrix 8, there exi.'\ts an orthogonal

matrix C such that

dl 0 0
0 dz 0
( 4) CIBC=D=

0 0 dp

If B is positive semidefinite, then d; 2!:: 0, i = 1" .. , p; if B is positive definite, then

d/>O,i=l, ... ,p.

The proof is given in the discussion of principal components in Section

11.2 for the case of B positive semidefinite and holds for B symmetric. The
characteristic equation (1) under transformation by C becomes

(5) 0 = ICII'IB AII'ICI IC'(B - AI)CI

= IC'BC - All ID - All
o
o p
= O(dj-A).
i'" I
o 0

Thus the characteristic roots of B are the diagonal elements of the trans~
formed matrix D.
If .\ is a characteristic root of B, then a vector XI not icentically 0
satisfying
( 6) (B = AJ)x J
0

is called a characteristic vector (or eigenvector) of the matrix B corresponding

to the characteristic root Ai' Any scalar multiple of Xi is also a characteristic
vector. When B is symmetric, x~(B - A,I) = O. If the roots are distinct,
xjBxJ = 0 and x; XI = 0, i"* j. Let C1 = (l/lIx/IDx l be the ith normalized
A.2 CHARACfERISTICROOTS AND VEL'TORS 633

characteristic vector, and let C=(CI' ... ,cp )' Then C'C=I and BC=CD.
These lead to (4). If a characteristic root has multiplicity m, then a set of m
corresponding characteristic vectors can be replaced by m linearly indepen.
dent linear combinations of them. The vectors can be chosen to satisfy (6)
and xjxi = 0 and xjBx; = 0, i j.*"
A characteristic vector lies in the direction of the principal axis (see
Chapter 11). The characteristic roots of B are proportional to the squares of
the reciprocals of the lengths of the principal axes of the ellipsoid
(7) x' Ilx = I

since this becomes under the rotation y = Cx

p
(8) l=y'Dy= ~d,y,'1.
/~ I

For a pair of matrices A (nonsingular) and B we shall also consider

equations of the form
(9) IB - AAI = O.

The roots of such equations ar':! of interest because of their invariance under
certain transformations. In fac , for nonsingular C, the roots of
(10) IC'BC-A(C'AC)I =0

are the same as those of (9) since

(11) IC'BC - AC'ACI = IC'(B - AA)CI = IC'I'IB - AAI·ICI

*"
and IC'I = ICI o.
By Corollary A 1.6 we have that if A is positive definite there is a matrix
E such that E' AE = I. Let E' BE = B*. From Theorem A.2.1 we deduce that
there exists an orthogonal matrix C such that C' B* C = D, where D is
diagonal. Defining EC as F, we have the folloVo ing theorem:

Theorem A.2.2. Given B positive semidefinite and A positive definite, there

exISts a nonsingular matrix F such that

At 0 0
0 A2 0
(12) F'BF=

0 0 Ap

(13) F'AF=I,
where Al ~ ... ~ Ap (~ 0) are the roots of (9). If B is positive definite. \ > 0
i= 1, ... ,p.
634 MATR IX THEOR Y

Corresponding to each root \ there is a ve( tor Xi satisfying

(14)

and x;Ax, = 1. *"

If the roots ,ue distinct x;Bx, = 0 and x/Ax. = 0, i j. Then
F = (XI'" ., x p )' If a root has multiplicity m, tl1en a set of m linearly
independent x.'s can be replaced by m linearly independent combinations of
°
them. The vectors can be chosen to satisfy (14) and xJBx i = and xjAxj = 0,
i *i.

Theorem A.2.3 (The Singular Value Decomposition). Given an n X p

matri.x X. n "2 p. there exists an n X n orthogonal matrix P, a p X P orthogonal
matrix Q. and an n X p matTU: D consisting of a p X P diagonal positive
semidefinite matrix and an (n - p) X P zero matrix such that

(15) X=PDQ.

Proof. From Theorem A.2.1, there exists a p Xp orthogonal matrix Q and

a diagonal matrix E such that

( 16)

where EI is diagonal and positive definite. Let XQ' = Y = (YI Y2 ), where the
number of columns of YI is the order of E1• Then YZY2 = 0, and hence
Y2 = O. Let P! = YI E1 4. Then PIP! = 1. An t1 X n orthogonal matrix P =
(PI pJ satisfying the theorem is obtained by adjoining P 2 to make
P orthogonal. Then the upper left-hand corner of D is EI~' and the rest of iJ
consists of zeros. •

Theorem A.2.4. Let A be positive definite and B be positive semidefinite.

Thetl
x'Bx
(17) Ap <--<A
- XiX - I'

where Al and Ap are the largest and smallest roots of (1), and

(18)

where AI and Ap are the largest and smallest roots of (9).

Proof: The inequalities (17) were essentially proved in Section 11.2, and
can also be derived from (4). The inequalities (18) follow from Theorem
A.2.2. •
A.3 PARTITIONED VECfORS AND MATRICES 635

A square matrix A is idempotent if A2 = A. If A satisfies IA - All = 0,

*
there exists a vector x 0 such that Ax =Ax = A 2x. However, A 2x = A(Ax)
= A Ax = A2 x. Thus A2 = A, and A is either 0 or 1. The multiplicity of A = 1 is
the rank of A. If A is p X p, then Ip - A is idempotent of rank p - (rank A),
and A and Ip - A are orthogonal. If A is symmetric, there is an orthogonal
matrix 0 such that

(19) OAO' = [~ O(/-A)O' = [~ 0]I .

A.3. PARTITIONED VECTORS AND MATRICES

Consider tht matrix A defined by (1) of Section AI. Let

Au=(aiJ, i= l, ... ,p, i= l, ... ,q,

A12 = (aiJ, i=l" .. ,p, j=q+l, ... ,n,

(1)
A 21 =(a i J, i=p+l, ... ,m, j=l, ... ,q,

A22 = (ajJ, i=p + l, ... ,m, j=q + l,.,.,n.

Then we can write

(2)

We say that. A has been panitioned into submatrices Au' Let B (m X n) be

partitioned similarly into submatrices B ,j , i, j = 1,2. Then

A12 + B12 )
(3)
A22 + B22 '

Now partition C (n X r) as

(4) C'2 )
C 22 '

where Cll and C'2 have q rowS and Cll and C21 have s columns. Then

12
(5) C )
C22

= (AlICn +A 12 C 21 A ll C 12 + A 12 C22 )
A 21 C ll +A 22 C 21 A 2,C'2 + An C 22 .
636 MATRIX THEORY

To verify this, consider an element in the first p rows and first s columns of
AC. The t, jth element is

(6) i5.p, j:5,s.

This sum can be written

q n
(7) L aJl,c k; + L a1kckj'
k=l k=.q+l

The first sum is the i, jth element of ABC II , the second sum is the i, jth
element of A 12 C Z1 ' and therefore the entire sum (6) is the t, }th element of
AIlC Il +A 1Z C 21 , In a similar fashion we can verify that the other submatrices
of AC can be written as in (5).
We note in passing that if A is partitioned as in (2), then the transpose of
A can be written

AI
A' = A'Z! )
(8) ( A'12
II
A' .
22

If A12 .;.., 0 and A21 0, then for A positive definite and All square,

(9) :-1) .
22

The matrix on the right exists because An and An are nonsingular. That the
right-hand matrix is the inverse of A is verified by multiplication:

(10) All
(o
0 ) (A11l 0 )=(1 0J\,
An 0 Ai} 0 1

which is a partitioned form of 1//.

We also note that

o 1
( 11)
1 o
The evaluation of the first determinant in the middle is made by expanding
according to minors of the last row; the only nonzero element in the sum is
the last, which is 1 times a determinant of the same form with 1 of order one
A.3 PARTITIONED VECfORS AND MATRICES 637

less. The procedure is repeated until IAIII is the minor. Similarly,

I o
(12) =
o

A useful fact is that if A I of q rows and p columns is of ran k q, there

exists a matrix A2 of p - q rows and p columns such that

(13)

is nonsingular. This statement is verified by numbering the columns of A so

that A (I consisting of the first q columns of A I is nonsingular (at least one
q X q minor of A I is different from zero) and then taking A2 as (0 I): then

(14) A121=IA
I II I,

which is not equal to zero.

Theorem A.J.1. Let the square matrix A be partitioned as in (2) so that A22
is square. If An is nonsingular, let

(15)

Then

(16)

A'l - AI' A;,IA'I

( 17) BAC = • - -- -
( o
If A is symmetric, C = B I.

Theorem A.3.2. Let the square matrix A be partitioned as in (2) so that A:2
is square. If A22 is nonsingular,

(18)
638 MATRIX THEORY

Proof Equation (18) follows from (16) because IBI = 1. •

Corollary A.3.t. For C nonsingular

c y
IC- yy'l
1 y'
(9) = = C = ICI(1- y'C-Iy).
y' 1 y

Theorem A.3.3. Let the nonsingular matrix A be panitiorted as in (2) so that

A" is square. If A.2.l is nonsingular, let A II ' 2 = All - AI2 A221A21' Then

(20)

Proof From Theorem All,

PI) o
A22
)C- 1•

Hence

(22) r'~c(A~' AO,,) -, B

-A~A22) ,
- ( -A;"A 2I ~W~" A~2' )( ~
Multiplication gives the desired result. •

Corollary A.3.2. If x' = (X(I), x(2),), then

(23) x' A - I X = (X(I) - A A-I x(2))'A- 1 (X(I) - A A- 1x(2») + X(2), A-I X(2)
12 22 11-2 12 22 22'

Proof From the theorem

(24)
x' A -I X = x(l), A~112X(l) - x(l), A;I~2AI2A221 x(:~)

- x (2)'A-22 A 21 A-I + X (2)'(A-'4 A-I A A-i. A-I) (2) ,

1 (I)
11- 2 X 22' 21 11 -2 12 22 + 22 X

which is equal to the right-hand side of (23). •

A.4 SOME MISCELLANEOUS RESULTS 639

Theorem A.3.4. Let the nonsingular matrix A be partitioned as in (2) so that

A22 is square. If A22 is nonsingular,

(25) (A22 -A2IAl/A12rI =A22IA21(AlI -AI2A22IA2IrI AI2A221 +A221.

Proof The lower right-hand corner of A -I is the right-hand side of (25)

by Theorem A.3.3 and is also the left-hand side of (25) by interchange of 1
and 2. •

Theorem A.3.S. Let U be p X m. The conditions for Ip - UU', 1m - U'U,

and

(26)

to be positive definite are the same.

Proof We have

(27) (v' w') ( ; ~)(:) ~ v'v +v'Uw + w'U'v +w'w

= v'(lm - UU')v + (U'v + W)/(U'V + w).
The second term on the right-hand side is nonnegative; the first term is
positive for all v*"O if and only if 1m - U'U is positive definite. Reversing
the roles of v and w shows that (26) is positive definite if and only if
Ip - UU' is positive definite. •

A.4. SOME MISCELLANEOUS RESULTS

Theorem A.4.1. Let C be p X p, positive semidefinite, and of rank r (:s: p).

Then there i.s a nonsingular matrix A such that

(1) ACA' = (~ ~).

Proof Since C is of rank r, there is a (p - r) X p matrix A2 such that

(2)
Choose B (r x p) such that

(3)
640 MATRIX THEORY

is nonsingular. Then

(4)

This matrix is of rank r, and therefore BCB 1 is non singular. By Corollary

A.1.6 there is a nonsingular matrix D such that D(BCB1)D 1= I r • Then

(5)

is a nonsingular matrix such that 0) holas. •

Lemma A.4.1. If E is p X p, symmetric, and flonsinguiar, there is a nonsin-

gular matrix F such that

(6)

where tlie order of I is the number of positive characteristic roots of E and the
order of -I is the number of negative characteristic roots of E.

Proof. From Theorem A.21 we know there is an orthogonal matrix G

such that

hI 0 0
0 hz 0
(7) GEGI=

0 0 hp

where h l :2:': ... :2:': hq > 0 > hq+l ~ ..• ~ hp are the characteristic roots of E.
Let

o o o

o l/{ii; 0 o
(8) K=
o o l/"j-hq+1 o

o o o l/"j-hp
AA SOME MISCELLANEOUS RESULTS 641

Then

(9) KGEG'K'= (KG)E(KG)'= (~ _~). •

Corollary A.4.1. Let C be p X p, symmerric, and of rank r (.:5 p). Tllell
there is a nonsingular matri.x A such that

o
(to) -I
o
where the order of I is the number of positive characteristic roots of C and the
order of - / is the number of negative charactedstic roots, the slim of the orders
being r.

Proof. The proof is the same as that of Theorem A4.l except that Lemma
A.4.l is used instead of Corollary A 1.6. •

Lemma A.4.2., Let A he n X m (11 > m) sach that

( 11 ) A' A = 1
""
There exists an n X (n - m) matrix B 5uch thM (A B) is orthogonal.

Proof. Since A is of rank m, there exists an 11 X (n - m) matrix C such

that (A C) is nonsingular. Take D as C - AA 'C; then D A = O. Let E t

[en - m) X (n - m)] be sllch that E'D'DE = I. Then B can be taken a~ DE .

•
Lemma A.4.3. Let x be a vector of 11 components. Then there exists an
orthogonal matrix 0 such that

( 12)
ox-liJ,
where c = ,;x;-;.
Proof Let the first row of 0 be (I Ic )x'. The other rows may be chosen in
any way to make the matrix orthogonal. •

Lemma A.4.4. Let B = (h) he a I) X P mrrrLr. Thc11

illBI
(13) ~=B'J'
IJ
i,j=l .... ,p.
642 MATRIX THEORY

Proof The expansion of IBI by elements of the ith row is

p
( 14) IBI = L b,hBih ·
h=!

Smce B,h does not contain b,), the lemma follows. •

Lemma A.4.5. Let b,j= f3,/c I , ... ,cn ) be the i,jth element of a p Xp
matrix B. Then for g = 1, ... , n,

(15)
alBI = .f. alBI. af3ih(c\ ... "c n ) = f. af3/h(c p •.. ,cn )
a g '-- ab iJ g '-- Bih iJc •
c l,h=l Ih c i,I1=I g

Theorem A.4.2. If A =A',

alAI
(16) aa=A jp
II

( 17) alAI = 2A .. i +j.

aa I) I)'

Proof Equation (16) folh)ws from the expansion of IAI according to

clements of the ith row. To prove (17) let b,) = bj, = ail' i, j = 1" .. , p, i s;,j.
Then by Lemma A.4.5,

(18)

Since IAI = IBI and B,) = B)I =A!) =A)" (17) follows. •

Theorem A.4.3.

(19) :x (x/Ax) = 2Ax,

where a/ax denotes taking panial derivatives with respect to each component ofx
and arranging the panial derivatives in a column.

Proof. Let h be a column vectOr of as many components as x. Then

(20) (x+h)'A(x+h) =x'Ax+h'Ax+x'Ah+h'Ah
=x'Ax+ 2h'Ax+h'Ah.
The partial derivative vector is the vector multiplying h' in the second term
on the right. •

Definition A.4.1. Let A = (a) be a p X m matrix and B = (ba{j) be a q X.'1

matrix. The pq X mn matrix with a!)ba{j as the element in the i, ath row and the
A.4 SOME MISCELLANEOUS RESULTS 643

j, 13th column is called the Kronecker or direct product of A and B and is

denoted by A ® B; that is,

(21) A®B=

Some properties are the following when the orders of matrices permit the
indicated operations:

(22) ( A ® B) ( C ® D) ( AC) ® (BD),

(23) (A®B) l=A-l®B-l.

Theorem A.4.4. Let the 1th characteristic root of A (p Xp) be Ai and the
corresponding characteristic vector be XI = (XII"'" Xpi )', and let the ath root of
B (q X q) be Va and the corresponding cha racterntic vector be Ya ' a = 1, ... , q.
Then the i, a th root of A ® B is Ai va' and the corresponding characteristic vector
isxi®Ya=(XIiY:, ... ,xpIY:)', i= 1, ... ,p, a= 1, ... ,q.

Proof.

AixplBYa
= AlVa

XpiYa
•
644 MATRIX THEORY

Theorem AA.S

(25)

Proof The determinant of any matrix is the product of its roots; therefore

(26)
•
Definition A.4.2. If the p X m matrix A = (a), ... , am)' then vee A =
( ap ..• ,a m
t t ),
.

Some properties of the vee operator [e.g., Magnus (I988)] are

(27) vee ABC = (C 1 ®A)vee B,

(28) veexy' =y ®x.

Theorem 1\.4.6. The Jacobian of the transformation E = y-l (from E to y)

2
is IYl- p, where p is the order of E and y.

Proof From EY = I, we have

(29)

where

Then

(31) (aoa)
E .... -.E (a)
ao y E = - y (aao Y)Y_[ •
-I

If 0 = YO:/P then

(32)
A.4 SOME MISCELlANEOUS RESULTS 645

where Ea{3 is a p X P matrix with all elements 0 except the element in the
ath row and 13th column, \\hich is 1; and e. a is the ath column of E and e{3.
is its 13th row_ Thus Be,)! BYa {3 = -e ,a e(3)- Then the Jacobian is the determi-
nant of a p2 X p2 matrix

(33) •
Theorem A.4.7. Let A and B be symmetric matrices with charactensric roots
a l ~ a2 ~ ••• ~ ap and b l ~ b 2 ~ .•. ~ bp , respectively, and let H be a p X P
onhogonal matrix. Then

p p
(34) max tr HAH'B = E alb!, min HA'H'B = E a)b p + I _J •
H j=l H )=1

Proof Let A = HoDoH~ and B = HbDbH~, where Ho and Hb are orthog-

onal and Do and Db are diagonal with diagonal elements ap .. _,a p and
b l , ... , bp respectively. Then

(35) max
H*
tr H*AH*'B = max
H*
tr H*H0 D 0 H'0 H*'H h D h H'b

= max tr HD II H'D h '

H

where H = H~H* Ho. We have

p
(36) tr HD" H' Db = E (HDoH') IIb,
i= 1
p-I i p
= E E (HDoH'h(b, - b, + I ) + bp E (HD"H'}))
i=] /=1 )=1

p-I I P

:::; E E a) ( b, - b, + 1 ) + bp E a)
i=l )=1 )=1

by Lemma A.4.6 below. The minimum in (34) is treated as the negative of the
maximum with B replaced by - B [von Neumann (937)]. •
646 MATRIX THEORY

Lemma A.4.6. Let P = (Pi) be a doubly stochastic matrix (Pu:.?t 0,

Li= I PI) = 1, r:f~ I PI, = O. Let Yl 2.Y2 2. '" 2::. Yp' Then
k k II

(37) 1: Yl 2::. 1: 1: Pi}Y), k=I, ... ,p.

1 1 1=1 j I

Proof
k p p
(38) 1: 1: PljY} = 1: g,Yj'
i-1j=1 j=I

where g) = r:~~1 PI)' j = 1, ... , P (0 :sg; :s 1, r:f~, gf = k). Then

(39) Eg;y;- Ey;= - EY;+Yk(k-

;-1 ;-1 ; I
Eg;) + Eg;Yj
j=I I

k p
= 1: (y) Yk)(gj 1)+ 1: (Yj-Yk)g;
j=l j=k+l

:s O. •
Corollary A.4.2. Let A be a symmetric matrix with characteristic roots
a l 2::. a 2 2. ... a p' Then
k
(40) max trR'AR= 1:a i •
R'R=I. i I

Proof In Theorem A.4.7 let

(41 )
•
Theorem A.4.S.

(42) 11 + xCI = 1 +x tr C + D( x 2 ).

Proof The determinant (42) is a polynomial in x of degree p; the

coefficient of the linear term is the first derivative of the determhtant
evaluated at x = O. In Lemma A.4.5 let n = 1, c i =x, f3ih(X) = 8;h +xc1h ,
where 011 = 1 and 0lh = 0, i '* h. Then df31h(x)/dx = c1h , Bu = 1 for x = 0, and
Blh = 0 for x = 0, i,* h. Thus

(43)
•
A.5 ORTHOGONALIZATION AND SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS 647

A.S. GRAM:-SCHMIDT ORTHOGONALIZATION AND THE

SOLUTI01~ OF LINEAR EQUATIONS

A.S.I. Gram-Schmidt Orlhogonalization

The derivation of the Wishart density in Section 7.2 included the
Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of a set of vectors; we shall review that
development here. Consider the p linearly independent n-dim.!Ilsional vec-
tors vp ... , £'p (p ::; t1). Define WI = l'l>

(1) i = 2, . .. ,p.

Then Wi =1= 0, i = 1, ... , p, because VI"'" vp are linearly independent, and

W;Wj = 0, i =1= j, as was proved by induction in Section 7.2. Let u i = (l/IiWiIDwi,
i = 1, ... , p. Then up ... , up are orthononnal; that is, they are orthogonal and
of unit length. Let U = (u l , ... , up)' Then U'U = I. Define tii = IIWili (> 0),

(2) j=I, ... ,i-l, i=2, ... ,p,

and tij = 0, j = i + 1, ... , p, i = 1, ... , P - 1. Then T = (t i ) is a lower triangu-

lar matrix. We can write (1) as
I-I i
(3) VI = Ilwillul + L (v;u j ) uj = L tijU j , i = 1, . .. ,p,
}=I }=l

that is,
(4)
Then
(5) A = V'V= TU'UT' = TT'
as shown in Section 7.2. Note that if V is square. we have decomposed an
arbitrary nonsingular matrix into the product of an orthogonal matrix and an
upper triangular matrix with positive diagonal elements; this is sometimes
known as the QR decomposition. The matrices U and T in (4) are unique.
These operations can be done in a different order. Let V = (v~O), •.. , v~O»).
For k = 1, ... , p - 1 define recursively

t -llv(k-l) II U =
1 V(k-l)
1V ( k - I)
= -tkk
(6) kk - k , k IIvik-I)11 k k ,

(7) tIk -V(k-l),U

- i k'
J' = k+l , ... , p,

(8) V(k) = V(k-l) -

} }
t.}k U k, j=k+ 1, ... ,p.
648 MATRIX THEORY

Finally tpp = IIv;P-I) II and up = O/tpp)V;P-I). The same orthonormal vectors

u I ' .•. ' up and the same triangular matrix (t , ) are given by the two proce-
dures.
The numbering of the columns of V is arbitrary. For numerical stability it
is usually best at any given stage to select the largest of IIvY-I) II to call t kk .
Instead of constructing wi as orthogonal to WI'.·.' wi- I> we can equiva-
lently construct it as orthogonal to VI' ••. ' Vi-I. Let WI = VI> and define
i-I
(9) W, = Vi + L f,)v)
/=1

such that
i-I
(10) 0= VhW, = V~Vi + L fi)vhVi
/"'1
i-I

= a hl + L ahdif' h=l, ... ,i-l.

/"'1

Let F = ct'), where fii = 1 and f,) = 0, i <j. Then

( 11)

Let D, be the diagonal matrix with IIw/11 == tif as the jth diagonal element.
Then U = WD t- 1 = VF' Dt- I • Comparison with V = UT' shows that F = DT- I•
Since A = IT', we see that FA = DT' is upper triangular. Helice F is the
matrix defined in Theorem A. 1.2.
There are other methods of accomplishing the QR decomposition that
may be computationally more efficient Or more stable. A Householder matrix
has the form H = In - 2aa', where a'a = 1, and is orthogonal and symmet-
ric. Such a matrix HI (i.e., a vector a) can be selected so that the first
column of H1V has O's in all positions except the fLrst, which is positive. The
next matrix has the form

(12) o
In_1
)-2(0)(0
a
, _(10 a ) -

The (n - I)-component vector a is chosen so that the second column of HIV

has all O's except the first two components, the second being positive. This
process is continued until

(13)
A.5 ORTHOGONALIZATION AND SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS 649

where T' is upper triangular and 0 is(n -p)xp. Let

(14)

where H(I) has p columns. Then from (13) we obtain V = HO)T'. Since the
decomposition is unique, H(l) = u.
Another procedure uses Givens matrices. A Givens matrix G1) is I except
for the elements gil = cos 8 = gii and gi) = sin 8 = -g)i' i =1= j. It is orthogonal.
Multiplication of V on the left by such a matrix leaves all rows unchanged
except the ith and jth; 8 can be chosen so that the i. jth element of G1) V
.v
is O. Givens matrices G 21 , ••. ,Gnl can be chosen in turn so G,Il ... G 2 has
all O's in the first column except the first element, which is positive. Next
G n ,· .. , Gn2 can be selected in turn so that when they are applied the
resulting matrix has O's in the second column except for the first two
elements. Let

(15)

Then we obtain

( 16)

and G(l) = u.

A.S.2. Solution of Linear Equations

In the computation of regression coefficients and other statistics, we need tu
solve linear equations

(17) Ax=y,

where A is p X P and positive definite. One method of solution is Gaussian

elimination of variable~, or pivotal condensation. In the proof of Theorem
A1.2 we constructed a lower triangular matrix F with diagonal elements 1
such that FA = A* is upper triangular. If Fy = y*, then the equation is

(18) A*x=y*.

In coordin ates this is

p
( 19) ~
i..J a*x
I))
=y:t'.
I
/=1
650 MATRIX THEORY

(/;".\','"''' =y,*/( /*' I '.} = I..

L eta,}*~ =a,}:t /'~ , I + I , ... ,p,l=
. J , ... ,p. 11len

p
( ~O) r = .\.**
. I ,
- ~ *:J. \..
L... (I,) . I'

} =i+ I

these equations are to be solved successively for x P ' x p _ P"" Xl' The calcula-
tion of FA =A* is known as the tOlward solution, and the solution of (18) as
the backward solution.
Since FAF' =A*F' =D2 diagonal, (20) is A**x=y**,where A** =D- 2A*
and y** = D-~ y*. Solving this equation gives

(21 ) X=A**-I y ** =F'y**.

The computation is

(~2)

The multiplier of y in (22) indicates a sequence of row operations which

yields A'- I.
The operations of the forward solution transform A to the upper triangu-
lar matrix A*. As seen in Section AS1, the triangularization of a matrix can
be done by a sequence of Householder transformations or by a sequence of
Givens transformations.
From FA = A*, we obtain
p
(23) IAI = TIa~il,
1= I

which is the product of the diagonal elements ot A*, resulting from the
forward solution. We also have

(24)

The forward solution gives a computation for the quadratic form which
occurs in T~ and other statistics.
For more on matrix computations ctmsult Golub and Von Loan (I 989).
APPENDIX B

Tables

TABLEB.l
Wll..KS'LIKEUHOOD CRITERION: FACTORS C(p, m, M)
TO ADJUST TO xi, 1ft' WHERE M = n - p +1
5% Significance Level
p-3
M\m 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 I~

1 1.295 1.422 1.535 '.632 1.716 1.791 1.857 1.916 1.971

2 1.109 1.174 1.241 1.302 1.359 1.410 1.458 1.501 1.542
3 1.058 1.099 1.145 1.190 1.232 1.272 1.309 1.344 1.377
4 1.036 1.065 1.099 1.133 1.167 1.199 1.229 1.258 1.286
5 1.025 1.046 1.072 1.100 1.127 1.154 1.179 1.204 1.228
6 1.018 1.035 1.056 1.078 1.101 1.123 1.145 1.167 1.188
7 1.014 1.027 1.044 1.063 1.082 1.101 1.121 1.139 1.158
8 1.011 1.022 1.036 1.052 1.068 1.085 1.102 1.119 1.135
9 1.009 1.018 1.030 1.043 1.058 1.073 1.088 1.102 1.117
10 1.007 1.015 1.025 1.037 1.050 1.063 1.076 1.089 1.103
12 1.005 1.011 1.019 1.028 1.038 1.048 1.059 1.070 1.081
15 1.003 1.008 1.013 1.020 1.027 1.035 1.043 1.052 1.060
20 1.002 1.004 1.008 1.012 1.017 1.022 1.028 1.034 1.040
30 1.001 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.009 1.011 1.015 1.018 1.021
60 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.006 1.007
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 12.5916 21.0261 28.8693 36.4150 43.7730 50.9985 58.1240 65.1708 72.1532

An Introduction to Multiuariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
651
 TABLE B.1 (Continued)

5% Significance Level
p=3 p=4
M\m 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
1 2.021 2.067 1.407 1.451 1.517 1.583 1.644 1.700 l.751
2 1.580 1.616 1.161 1.194 1.240 1.286 1.331 l.373 1.413
3 1.408 1.438 1.089 1.114 1.148 1.183 1.218 1.252 1.284
4 1.313 1.338 1.057 1.076 1.102 1.130 1.159 1.186 l.213
5 1.251 1.273 l.040 1.055 1.076 1.099 1.122 1.145 1.168
6 1.208 1.227 1.030 1.042 1.('59 1.078 1.097 1.118 1.137
7 1.176 1.193 1.023 1.033 1.047 1.063 1.080 1.097 1.115
8 1.151 1.167 1.018 1.027 1.038 1.052 1.067 l.082 1.097
9 1.132 1.147 1.015 1.022 1.032 1.044 1.057 1.070 1.084
10 1.116 1.129 1.012 l.018 1.027 1.038 1.049 1.061 1.073
12 1.092 1.103 1.009 1.014 1.020 1.029 1.038 1.047 1.058
15 1.069 1.078 1.006 1.009 1.014 1.020 1.027 1.035 1.042
20 1.046 1.052 1.003 1.006 1.009 1.013 1.017 1.022 1.027
30 1.025 1.029 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.006 1.009 1.011 1.014
60 l.008 1.009 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.003 1.004
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 l.000
2
Xpm 79.0819 85.9649 15.5073 26.2962 36.4150 46.1943 55.7585 65.1708 74.4683

TABLE B.1 (Continued)

5% Significance Level
p-4 p - 5
M\m 16 18 20 2 4 6 8 10 12

1 1.799 1.843 1.884 1.503 l.483 1.514 1.556 1.600 1.643

2 1.450 1.485 1.518 1.209 1.216 1.245 1.280 1.315 1.350
3 1.314 1.343 1.371 1.120 l.130 1.154 1.182 l.211 1.240
4 1.239 1.264 1.288 1.079 1.089 1.108 1.131 1.155 1.179
5 1.190 1.212 1.233 l.056 l.065 1.081 1.100 1.120 1.141

6 1.157 1.176 1.194 1.042 1.050 l.063 1.(.179 1.097 1.114

7 1.132 1.149 1.165 1.033 1.040 1.051 1.065 1.080 1.095
8 1.113 1.128 1.143 1.026 1.032 1.042 1.054 1.067 1.081
9 l.098 1.111 1.125 1.022 1.027 1.035 1.046 1.057 1.070
10 1.086 1.098 1.110 1.018 1.023 1.030 1.039 1.050 1.061

12 1.068 1.078 1.088 1.013 1.017 1.023 1.030 1.038 1.047

15 1.050 1.058 1.066 1.009 1.011 1.016 1.021 1.028 1.034
20 1.033 1.039 1.045 1.005 1.007 1.010 1.013 1.018 1.022
30 1.018 1.021 l.024 1.002 1.003 1.005 1.007 1.009 1.012
60 1.005 1.007 1.008 1.001 l.ool 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.004
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 18.3070 31.4104 43.7730 79.081 9
Xpm 83.6753 92.8083 101.879 55.7585 67.5048

652
 TABLE B.l (Continued)
- 5% significance Level
p""'5 p=6 p-7
M\m 14 16 2 6 8 10 12 2 4

1 1.683 1.722 1.587 1,520 1.543 1.573 1.605 1.662 1550

2 1.383 1.415 1.254 1.255 1.279 1.J07 1.J35 1.297 1.263
3 1.267 1.294 1.150 1.163 1.184 1.208 1.2l2 1.178 1.165
4 1.203 1.226 1.100 1.116 1.134 1.154 1.175 1.121 1.116
5 1.161 1.181 1.072 1.088 1.103 1.120 1.138 1.089 1.087

6 1.132 1.150 1.055 1.069 1.082 1.097 1.113 1.068 1.068

7 1.111 1.127 1.04\ 1.056 1.068 1.081 1.095 1.054 1.055
8 1.095 1.109 1.035 1.046 1.057 1.068 1.081 1.044 1.045
9 1.082 1.095 1.029 1.039 1.048 1.059 1.070 1.036 1.038
10 1.072 1.083' 1.024 1.034 1.042 1.051 1.061 1.031 1.032

12 1.057 1.066 1.018 1.025 1.032 1.040 1.048 1.023 1.024

15 1.042 1.049 1.012 1.018 1.023 1.029 1.035 1.016 1.017
20 1.027 tOJ3 1.007 1.011 1.014 1.018 1.023 1.010 1.011
30 1.014 1.018 1.003 1.006 1.007 1.010 1.012 1.005 1.005
60 1.004 1.006 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.001 1.001
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 79.0819 92.8083 23.6848 41.337 1
Xpm 90.5312 101.879 21.0261 50.9985 65.1708

TABLE B.l (Continued)

5% Significance Level
p-7 p-8 p=9 P 10
M\m 6 8 10 2 8 2 4 6 2

1 1.530 1.538 1.557 1.729 1.538 1.791 1.614 1.558 1.847

2 1.266 1.282 D03 1.336 1.288 1.373 1.J09 1.293 1.40S
3 1.173 1.189 1.208 1.206 1.195 1.232 1.201 U96 1.257
4 1.124 1.139 1.155 U42 1.144 1.162 1.144 1.144 1.182
5 1.095 1.108 U22 1.105 1.113 1.121 1.110 1.112 1.137

6 1.075 1.086 1.099 1.081 1.091 1.094 L088 1.090 1,107

7 1.062 1.071 1.083 1.065 1.076 1.076 1.071 1.074 1.087
8 1.051 1.060 1.070 1.053 1.064 1.062 1.060 1.062 Lon
9 1.043 1.051 1.060 1.044 1.055 1.052 1.050 1.053 1.061
10 1.037 1.044 1.053 1.038 1.048 1.045 1.043 1.046 1.052

12 1.029 1.034 ~
1.042 1.028 1.038 Lo34 LoB 1.035 1.039
IS 1.020 1.024 1.031 1.019 1.027 1.023 1.023 1.025 1028
20 1.0n 1.016 1.019 1.012 1.017 1.014 1.015 1.016 1.017
30 1.006 1.008 1.010 1.006 1.009 l.(lO7 1.007 1.008 1.009
60 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 58.1240 74.4683 90.5312 26.2962 83.6753 28.8693 50.9985 72.15n 31.4104
Xpm

653
 TABLEB.l ( Continued)
1 % Significance Level
p=3
M\m 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1 U56 1.514 1.649 1.763 1.862 1.949 2.026 2.095
2 1.131 1.207 1.282 1.350 1.413 1.470 1.523 1.571
3 1.070 1.116 1.167 1.216 1.262 1.306 1.346 1.384
4 1.043 1.076 1.113 1.150 1.187 1.221 1.254 1.285
5 1.030 1.054 1.082 1.112 1.141 1.170 1.198 1.224
6 1.022 1.040 1.063 1.087 1.112 1.136 1.159 1.182
7 1.016 1.031 1.050 1.070 1.091 1.111 1.132 1.152
8 1.013 1.025 1.041 1.058 1.075 1.093 1.111 1.129
9 1.010 1.021 1.034 1.048 1.064 1.080 1.095 1.111
10 1.009 l.017 1.028 1.041 1.055 1.069 1.082 1.097
12 1.006 1.012 1.021 1.031 1.042 1.053 1.064 1.076
15 1.004 1.009 1.014 1.021 1.030 1.038 1.047 1.056
20 1.002 1.005 1.009 1.013 1.019 1.024 1.030 1.036
30 1.001 1.002 1.004 1.007 1.009 1.012 1.016 1.019
60 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.005 1.006
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 16.8119 26.2170 34.8053 42.9798 50.8922 58.6192 66.2062 73.6826

TABLEB.l (Continued)
1 % Significance Level
p~3 p-4
M\m 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10
1 2.158 2.216 2.269 1.490 1.550 1.628 1.704 1.774
2 1.616 1.657 1.696 1.192 1.229 1.279 1.330 1.379
3 1.420 1.453 1.485 1.106 1.132 1.168 1.207 1.244
4 1.315 1.344 1.371 1.068 1.088 1.115 1.146 1.176
5 1.249 1.274 1.297 1.047 1.063 1.085 1.109 1.134
6 1.204 1.226 1.246 1.035 1.048 1.066 1.086 1.107
7 1.171 1.190 1.209 1.027 1.037 1.052 1.070 1.088
8 1.146 1.163 1.180 1.021 1.030 1.043 1.053 1.073
q 1.127 1.142 1.157 1.017 1.025 1.036 1.048 1.062
10 1.111 1.125 1.139 1.014 1.021 1.030 1.041 1.054
12 1.087 1.099 1.110 1.010 1.015 1.023 1.031 1.041
15 1.065 1.074 1.083 1.007 1.010 1.016 1.022 1.029
20 1.043 1.049 1.056 1.004 1.006 1.010 1.014 1.019
30 1.023 1.027 1.031 1.002 1.003 1.005 1.007 1.009
60 1.007 1.009 1.010 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.003
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 81.0688 88.3794 95.6257 20.0902 31.9999 42.9798 53.4858 63.6907

654
 TABLE B.1 (Continued)
1 % Significance Level
p-4 p-5
M\m 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6
1 1.838 1.896 1.949 1.999 2.045 1.606 1.589 1.625
2 1.424 1.467 1.507 1.545 1.580 1.248 1.253 1.284
3 1.280 1.314 1.347 1.378 1.408 1.141 1.150 1.175
4 1.205 1.234 1.261 1.287 1.313 1.092 1.101 1.121
5 1.159 1.183 1.207 1.230 1.252 1.065 1.074 1.090
6 1.128 1.149 1.169 1.189 1.208 1.049 1.056 1.070
7 1.106 1.124 1.142 1.160 1.177 1.038 1.044 1.056
8 1.089 1.105 1.121 1.137 1.153 1.031 1.036 1.046
9 1.076 1.091 1.105 1.119 1.133 1.025 1.030 1.039
10 1.066 1.079 1.092 1.105 1.118 1.021 1.025 1.033
12 1.0S1 1.062 1.073 1.083 1.094 1.015 1.019 1.025
15 1.017 1.045 1.053 1.062 1.071 1.010 LOU 1.017
20 1.024 1.029 1.035 1.041 1.047 1.006 1.008 1.011
30 1.012 1.015 1.019 1.022 1.026 1.003 1.004 1.005
60 1.004 1.005 1.006 1.007 1.008 1.001 1.001 1.001
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 73.6826 83.5134 93.2168 102.8168 112.3292 23.2093 37.5662 50.8922

TABLE B.1 (Continued)

1 % Significance Level
--
p-5 p-6
M\m ~ 10 12 14 16 2 6 8
1 1.672 1.721 1.768 1.813 1.855 1.707 1.631 1.656
2 1.321 1.359 1.396 1.431 1.465 1.300 1.294 1.319
3 1.204 1.235 1.265 1.294 1.323 1.175 1.183 1.205
4 1.145 1.171 1.196 1.221 1.245 1.116 1.129 1.148
5 1.110 1.131 1.153 1.174 1.196 1.084 1.097 1.113
6 1.087 1.105 1.124 1.143 1.161 1.063 1.076 1.090
7 1.071 1.087 1.103 1.119 1.136 1.050 1.061 1.074
8 11.059 1.073 1.087 1.102 1.116 1.040 1.051 1.062
9 1.050 1.062 1.075 1.088 1.101 1.033 1.043 1.052
10 1.043 1.054 1.065 1.077 1.089 1.028 1.037 1.045
12 1.033 1.041 1.051 1.060 1.070 1.021 1.028 1.035
15 1.023 1.030 1.037 1.044 1.052 1.014 1.020 1.024
20 1.015 1.019 1.024 1.029 1.034 1.008 1.012 1.015
30 1.007 1.010 1.012 1.015 1.019 1.004 1.006 1.008
60 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.005 1.006 1.001 1.002 1.002
00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 63.6907 76.1539 88.3794 100.425: 112.329J 26.2170 58.6192 73.6826

655
 TABLE B.l (Cantin/led)
1% Significance Level
p-6 p-7
M\m 10 12 2 4 6 8 10
1 1.687 1.722 1.797 1.667 1.642 1.648 1.660
2 1.348 1.378 1.348 1.305 1.306 1.321 L342
3 1.230 1.255 1.207 u8B 1.194 1.210 1.229
4 1.169 1.191 1.140 1.130 1138 1.152 1.169
5 1.131 1.150 1.102 1.097 1.105 1.117 1.132
6 1.106 1.122 1.078 1.076 1.083 1.094 1.107
7 1.087 1.102 1.062 1.061 1.067 1.077 1.089
8 1.074 1.086 1.050 1.050 1.056 1.065 1.075
9 1.063 1.075 1.042 1.042 1.047 1.055 1.065
10 1.055 1.065 1.035 1.036 1.041 1.048 1.056
12 1.042 1.051 1.026 1.027 1.031 1.037 1.044
15 1.030 1.037 1.018 1.019 1.022 1.025 1.032
20 1.019 1.024 1.011 1.012 1.014 1.017 1,020
30 1.010 1.013 1.005 1.006 1.007 1.00t) 1.011
60 1.003 1.004 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.003
IX) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 29.1412
Xpm 88.3794 102.816 48.2782 66.2062 83.5134 100.425

TABLE B.l (Continued)

1 % Significance Level
p=8 p=9 p -10
M\m 2 8 2 4 6 2
1 1.879 1.646 1.953 1.740 1.671 2.021
2 1.394 1.326 1.436 1.355 1.333 1.476
3 1.238 1.215 1.267 1.226 1.218 1.296
4 1163 1.158 1.185 Ll61 1.158 1.207
5 1.120 1.123 1.138 1.122 U22 1.155
6 1.092 1.099 1.107 1.096 1.098 1.121
7 1.074 1.082 1.086 1.078 1.080 1.098
~ 1.060 1.069 1.070 1.065 1.067 1.081
9 1.050 1.059 1.059 1.055 1.058 1.068
10 1.043 1.051 1.050 1.047 1.050 1.058
12 1.032 1.040 1.038 1.036 1.037 1.044
15 1.022 1.028 1.026 1.026 1.027 1.031
20 1.013 1.018 1.016 1.016 1.017 1.019
30 1.007 1.009 1.008 1.008 1.009 1.010
60 1.002 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.003
IX) 1.000 1.000 LOOO 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
Xpm 31.9999 93.2168 34.8053 58.6192 81.0688 375662

656
 TABLE B.2
TABLES OF SIGNIFICANCE POINTS FOR THE LAWLEy-HOTELLING TRACE TEST
Pr{ ~ W ~ X .. } ... a

5% Significance level
p-2
n\m 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15
2 9.859· 10.659· 11.098· 11.373· 11.562· 11.804· 11.952· 12.052· 12.153·
3 58,428 58.915 59.161 59.308 59.407 59.531 59.606 59.655 59.705
4 23.999 23.312 22.918 22.663 22.484 22.250 22.104 22.003 21.901
5 15.639 14.864 14.422 14.135 13.934 13.670 13.504 13.391 13.275
6 12.175 11.411 10.975 10.691 10.491 10.228 10.063 9.949 9.832
7 10.334 9.594 9.169 8.893 8.697 8.440 8.277 8.164 8.048
8 9.207 8.488 8.075 7.805 7.614 7.361 7.201 7.090 6.975
10 7.909 7.224 6.829 6.570 6.386 6.141 5.<J84 5.875 5.761
12 7.190 6.528 6.146 5.894 5.715 5.474 5.320 5.212 5.100
14 6.735 6.090 5.717 5.470 5.294 5.057 4.905 4.798 4.686
18 6.193 5.571 5.209 4.970 4.798 4.566 4.416 4.309 4.198
20 6.019 5.405 5.047 4.810 4.640 4.410 4.260 4.154 4.042
25 5.724 5.124 4.774 4.542 4.374 4.147 3.998 3892 3.780
30 5.540 4.949 4.604 4.374 4.209 3.983 3.835 3.729 3.617
35 5.414 4.829 4.488 4.260 4.096 3.872 3.724 3.618 3.505
40 5.322 4.742 4.404 4.178 4.014 3.791 3.643 3.538 3.425
50 5.198 4.625 4.290 4.066 3.904 3.682 3.535 3.429 3.315
60 5.118 4.549 4.217 3.994 3.833 3.611 3.465 3.359 3.245
70 5.062 4.496 4.165 3.944 3.783 3.562 3.416 3.310 3196
80 5.020 4.457 4.127 3.907 3.747 3.526 3.380 3.274 3.159
100 4.963 4.403 4.075 3.856 3.696 3.476 3.330 3.224 3.109
200 4.851 4.298 3.974 3.757 3.598 3.380 3.234 3.127 3.012
00 4.744 4.197 3.877 3.661 3.504 3.287 3.141 3.035 2.918
-Mulliplyby 10 2•

657
 TABLE B.2 (Continued)
1% Significance Level
p-2
n\m 1. 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15

2 1..~7t 2.667 t 2.776 t 2.844 t 2.891t 2.952t 2.989 t 3.014t 3.039 t

3 2.985- 2.990- 2.992- 2.994- 2.995- 2.996- 2.997- 2.997- 2.998-
4 74.275 71.026 69.244 68.116 67.337 66.332 65.712 65.290 64.862
5 38.295 35.567 34.070 33.121 32.465 31.615 31.088 30.729 30.364
6 26.118 23.794 22.517 21.706 21.143 20.413 19.958 1 ~.648 19.332
7 20.388 18.326 17.191 16.469 15.967 15.313 14.905 14.626 14.341
8 17.152 15.268 14.229 13.567 13.106 12.504 12.127 11.868 11.603
10 13.701 12.038 11.120 10.531 10.121 9.582 9.243 9.01J 8.769
12 11.920 10.388 9.541 8.996 8.615 8.113 7.796 7.577 7.351
14 10.844 9.399 8.597 8.082 7.720 7.242 6.939 6.729 6.511
18 9.617 8.278 7.533 7.053 6.714 6.265 5.979 5.780 5.572
20 9.236 7.932 7.206 6.736 6.406 5.966 5,685 5.489 5.284

25 8.604 7.360 6.666 6.217 5.899 5.476 5.204 5.013 4.813

30 8.219 7.013 6.339 5.903 5.593 5.180 4.914 4.726 4.529
35 7.959 6.780 6.120 5.692 5.389 4.982 4.720 4.535 4.339
40 7.173 6.613 5.964 5.542 5.243 4.841 4.582 4.398 4.204
50 7.523 6.389 5.754 5.341 5.048 4.653 4.397 4.216 4.023
60 7.363 6.247 5.621 5.214 4.924 4.534 4.280 4.100 3.908
70 7.252 6.148 5.529 5.125 4.838 4.451 4.199 4.020 3.829
80 7.171 6.075 5.461 5.061 4.775 4.391 4.140 3.961 3.770
100 7.059 5.976 5.369 4.972 4.690 4.308 4.059 3.881 3.691
200 6.843 5.785 5.191 4.803 4.525 4.150 3.903 3.727 3.538
00 6.638 5.604 5.023 4.642 4.369 4.000 3.757 3.582 3.393

tMuJtiply by 10 4
'Multiply by lO~

658
 TABLE B.2 ( Continued)
5% Significance Level
p=3
n\m 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 20

3 25.930* 26.996* 27.665* 28.125* 28.712* 29.073* 29.316 * 29.561* 29.809

4 1.188* 1.193* 1.196* 1.198* 1.200* 1.202* 1.203* 1.204* 1.205'
5 42.474 41.764 41.305 40.983 40.562 40.300 40.120 39.937 39.750
6 25.456 24.715 24.235 23.899 23.458 23.182 22.992 22.799 22.600
7 18.752 18.056 17.605 17.288 16.870 16.608 16.427 16.241 16.051
8 15.308 14.657 14.233 13.934 13.540 13.290 ' 13.118 12.941 12.758
10 11.893 11.306 10.921 10.649 10.287 10.057 9.897 9.732 9.560
12 10.229 9.682 9.323 9.068 8.727 8.509 8.357 8,198 8.033
14 9.255 8.736 8.394 8.149 7.822 7.612 7.465 7.311 7.150
16 8.618 8.118 7.788 7.553 7.236 7.031 6.887 6.736 6.577
18 8.170 7.685 7.364 H35 6.825 6.624 6.483 6.334 6.177
20 7.838 7.365 7.051 6.826 6.522 6.325 6.185 6.038 5.882
25 7.294 6.841 6.539 6.323 6.029 5.837 5.700 5.556 5.401
30 6.965 6.524 6.231 6.020 5.732 5.543 5.409 5.265 5.112
35 6.745 6.313 6.025 5.818 5.534 5.348 5.214 5.072 4.919
40 6.588 6.162 5.878 5.673 5.393 5.208 5.076 4.934 4.781
50 6.377 5.961 5.682 5.481 5.205 5.022 4.891 4.750 4.597
60 6.243 5.832 5.558 5.359 5.086 4.904 4.774 4.633 4.480
70 6.150 5.744 5.471 5.274 5.003 4.823 4.693 4.553 4.399
80 6.082 5.679 5.408 5.212 4.943 4.763 4.634 4.493 4.339
100 5,989 5.590 5.322 5.128 4.860 4.682 4.552 4.413 4.258
200 5.810 5.419 5.156 4.965 4.702 4.525 4.397 4.257 4.102
00 5.640 5.256 4.999 4.812 4.552 4.377 4.250 4.110 3.954
2
• Multiply by 10 •

659
 TABLE 8.2 (Continued)

1% Significa lee Level

p-3
n\m 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 20

3 6.484 t 6.750 t 6.917 t 7.031t 7.178t 7.267t 7.328t 7.389 t 7.451t

4 5.990* 5.995* 5.998* 6.000* 6.002* 6.003* 6.005* 6.006* 6.007*
5 1.274* 1.242* 1.222* 1.208* 1.190* 1.179* 1.172* 1.164* 1.156'
6 59.507 57.032 55.462 54.377 52.973 52.102 51.509 50.906 50.292
7 37.994 35.993 34.721 33.840 32.695 31.984 31.498 31.002 30.4%
8 28.308 26.599 25.511 24.755 23.771 23J57 22.737 22.308 21.868

10 19.737 18.355 17.471 16.855 16.050 15.544 15.197 14.840 14.472

12 15.973 14.765 13.990 13.448 12.737 12.2&8 11.978 11.659 11.328
14 13.905 12.803 12.096 11.599 10.945 10.530 10.243 9.946 9.638
16 12.610 11.581 10.918 10.452 9.B36 9.44. 9.172 8.B9O B.596
18 11.729 10.751 10.120 9.676 9.087 8.712 8.450 8.178 7.893
20 11.091 10.152 9.545 9.117 8.549 8.186 7.932 7.668 7.390

25 10.075 9.201 8.634 8.233 7.699 7.356 7.115 6.B03 6.596

30 9.479 8.644 8.102 7.718 7.205 6.874 6.641 6.395 6.135
35 9.087 8.280 7.755 7.3'82 6.883 6.560 6.332 6.091 5.834
40 8.811 8.023 7.511 7.146 6.65(" 6.339 6.115 5.877 5.623
50 8.448 7.686 7.l89 6.836 6.360 6.050 5.831 5.597 5.346
60 8.220 7.474 6.988 6.642 6.174 5.870 5.653 5.422 5.l72
70 8.063 7.329 6.850 6.509 6.047 5.746 5.531 5,302 5.053
80 7.948 7.224 6.750 6.412 5.955 5.656 5.443 5.215 4.967

100 7.793 7.081 6.614 6.281 5.830 5.534 5.323 5.096 4.850
200 7.498 6.808 6.356 6.032 5.593 5.304 5.096 4.873 4.627
00 7.222 6.554 6.116 5.801 5.373 5.089 4.885 4.664 4.419

tMultiply by 10 4 •
*Multiply by 10 2 •

660
 TABLE B.2 (Continued)
5% Significance Level
p=4
n\m 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 20 25

4 49.964· 51.204· 52.054· 53.142· 53.808· 54.258· 54.71· 55.17· 55.46·

5 1.996· 2.001· 2.005· 2.009· 2.011· 2.013· 2.015· 2.016· 2.017·
6 65.715 64.999 64.497 63.841 63.432 63.151 62.866 62573 62.396
7 37.343 36.629 36.129 35.474 35.064 34.782 34.495 34.200 34.019
8 26516 25.868 25.413 24.814 24.437 24.178 23.912 23.639 23.471

10 17.875 17.326 16.938 16.424 16.098 15.872 15.640 15.399 15.250

12 14.338 13.848 13.500 13.037 12.741 12535 12.321 12.099 11.961
14 12.455 12.002 11.680 11.248 10.972 10.778 10.577 10.366 10.234
16 11.295 10.868 10.563 10.154 9.890 9.705 9.512 9.309 9.181
18 10.512 10.104 9.812 9.419 9.165 8.986 8.798 8.600 8.475
20 9.950 9.556 9.274 8.893 8.645 8,471 8.287 8,093 7.970

25 9.059 8.688 t.,422 8.062 7.826 7.659 7.482 7.293 7.173

30 8.538 8.182 7.927 7.578 7.350 7.188 7.015 6.829 6.710
35 8.197 7.852 7.603 7.263 7.040 6.880 6.710 6.526 6.408
40 7.957 7.619 7.375 7.041 6.821 6.664 6.495 6.313 6.195
50 7.640 7.313 7.075 6.750 6.535 6.380 6.214 6.033 5.916
60 7.442 7.120 6.887 6.568 6.356 6.203 6.038 5.858 5.740
70 7.305 6.988 6.758 6.443 6.232 6.081 5.917 5.738 5.620
80 7.206 6.892 6.665 6.351 6.143 5.992 5.829 5.650 5.532
100 7.071 6.762 6.537 6.228 6.021 5.872 5.710 5.531 5.413
200 6.814 6.514 6.295 5.993 5.791 5.644 5.484 5.305 5.186
00 6.574 6.282 6.069 5.774 5.576 5.431 5.272 5.094 4.974

• Multiply by 10 2 .

661
 TABLE B.2 ( Continlled)

1% Significance Level
p=4
n\m 4 5 6 8 10 12 IS 20 25

4 12.491t 12.800t n012t 13.283 t 13.449 t 13. 561t . 13.67 t 13.79 t 13.87 t
5 9.999· 10.004· 10.008· 10.012· 10.014· 10.016· 10.018· 10.02· 10.02·
6 1.938· 1.906· 1.885· 1.857 • 1.840· ·L828· 1.816 • 1.804· 1.797 •
7 85.053 82.731 81.125 79.047 77.759 76.882 75.989 75.082 74.522
8 51.991 SO.178 48.921 47.290 46.276 45.583 44.877 44.156 43.715
10 29.789 28.478 27.566 26.376 25.632 25.121 24.597 24.060 23.731
12 21.965 20.889 20.138 19.154 18.534 18.108 17.668 17.215 16.936
14 18.142 17.199 16.539 15.670 15.121 14.742 14.349 13.943 13.691
16 15.916 15.059 14.457 13.662 13.157 12.807 12.444 12.066 11.831
18 14.473 13.674 13.112 12.368 11.894 11.564 11.221 10.863 10.639
20 13.466 12.710 12.177 11.470 11.018 10.703 10.374 10.030 9.814

25 11.924 11.237 10.751 10.103 9.687 9.395 9.089 8.766 8.562

30 11.055 10.409 9.951 9,338 8.943 8.665 8.372 8.060 7.363
35 10.499 9.880 9.440 8.851 8.470 8.200 7.915 7.611 7.418
40 10,114 9.514 9.087 8.514 U42 7.879 7.600 7.301 7.110
50 9.614 9.040 8.631 8.079 7.720 7.465 7.194 6.902 6.713
60 9.305 8.747 8.319 7.311 7.460 7.210 6.943 6.655 6.468
70 9.095 8.549 8.158 7.630 7.284 7.037 6.774 6.488 6.301
80 8.944 8.405 8.020 7.498 7.157 6.912 6.651 6.367 6.181

100 8.739 8.211 7.833 7.321 6.985 6.744 6.486 6.204 6.019
200 8.354 7.848 7.484 6.990 6.664 6429 6.176 5.898 5.714
00 8.000 7.513 7.163 6.686 6.369 6.140 5.892 5.616 5.432
tMultiply by 10'
• Multiply by 10~

662
 TABLE 8.2 (Continued)

5% Significance Level
p=5
n\m 5 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 40

5 81.991· 83.352· 85.093· 86.160 t 86.88t

6 3.009· 3.014- 3.020· 3.024t 3.027 t 3.029 t 3.032t
7 93.762 93.042 92.102 91.515 91.113 90.705 90.29 90.04
8 51.339 50.646 49.739 49.170 48.780 48.382 47.973 47.723 47.35

10 27.667 27.115 26.387 25.927 25.610 25.284 24.947 24.740 '24.422

12 20.169 19.701 19.079 18.683 18.409 18.124 17.830 17.647 17.365
14 16.643 16.224 15.666 15.309 15.059 14.800 14.530 14.361 14.100
16 14.624 14.239 13.722 13.389 13.157 12.914 12.659 12.499 12.250
18 13.326 12.963 12.476 12.161 11.939 11.708 11.463 11.310 11.068
20 12.424 12.078 11.612 11.310 11.097 10.874 10.637 10.488 10.252

25 11.046 10.728 10.297 10.016 9.817 9.606 9.381 9.239 9.010

30 10.270 9.969 9.559 9.291 9.099 8.896 8.679 8.539 8.314
35 9.774 9.484 9.088 8.828 8.642 8.444 8.230 8.093 7.869
40 9.429 9.147 8.761 8.5(;7 8.325 8.130 7.919 7.783 7.561

50 8.982 8.711 8.339 8.092 7.915 7.725 7.518 7.383 7.161

60 8.706 8.441 8.077 7.836 7.662 7.474 7.269 7.135 6.912
70 8.517 8.257 7.899 7.661 7.489 7.304 7.100 6.967 6.743
80 8.381 8.124 7.770 7.535 7.365 7.181 6.978 6.845 6.621

100 8.197 7.945 7.597 7.365 7.197 7.014 6.813 6.680 6.455
200 7.850 7.607 7.271 7.045 6.881 6.702 6.503 6.370 6.142
00 7.531 7.295 6.970 6.750 6.590 6.414 6.217 6.084 5.850

tMultiply by 10 4 •
• Multiply by 10 2 •

663
 TABLE B.2 ( Continued)

1% Significance Level
p==5
n\m 5 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 40

5 20.495· 20.834· 21.267· 21.53·

6 15.014· 15.019· 15.025· 15.029· 15.033· 15.03· 15.06·
7 2.735· 2.704· 2.665· 2.640· 2.623· 2.606· 2.590· 2.579·
8 1.150· 1.128· 1.099· 1.081· 1.069· 1.057· 1.044· 1.036· . -

10 48.048 46.670 44.877 43.758 42.992 42.2lO 41.408 40.921

12 31.108 30.065 28.701 27.846 27.257 26.653 26.031 25.648 25.06
14 24.016 23.145 22.001 21.279 20.781 20.268 19.736 19.408 18.90
16 20.240 19.472 18.459 17.817 17.373 16.913 16.435 16.138 15.678
18 17.929 17.228 16.302 15.713 15.304 14.878 14.435 14.159 13.727
20 16.380 15.727 14.862 14.310 13.925 13.525 13.105 12.843 12.431

25 14.107 13.529 12.759 12.265 11.918 11.555 11.172 10.930 10.547

30 12.880 12.345 11.629 11.167 10.842 10.500 10.136 9.906 9.538
35 12.115 11.607 10.926 10.486 10.174 9.845 9.494 9.271 8.911
40 11.593 11.105 10.448 10.022 9.720 9.401 9.058 8.839 8.484

50 10.928 10.465 9.841 9.434 9.144 8.836 8.504 8.290 7.940

60 10.523 10.076 9.471 9.076 8.794 8.493 8.167 7.956 7.609
70 10.251 9.814 9.223 8.835 8.559 8.263 7.941 7.732 7.386
80 10.055 9.626 9.045 8.663 8.390 8.097 7.779 7.571 7.225

100 9.793 9.374 8.806 8.432 8.164 7.876 7.561 7.355 7.009
200 9.306 8.907 8.363 8.004 7.745 7.465 7.157 6.953 6.606
00 8.863 8.482 7.961 7.6l5 7.365 7.093 6.790 6.588 6.236

·Multiply by 10 2 •

664
 TABLE B.2 ( Contin1led)

5% Significance Level
p=6
n\m 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35

10 45.722 44.677 44.019 43.567 43.103 42.626 42.334 42.136 41.993

12 28.959 28.121 27.590 27.223 26.843 26.451 26.209 26.044 25.925
14 22.321 21.600 21.141 20.821 20.489 20.144 19.929 19.783 19.677
16 18.858 18.210 17.795 17.505 17.202 16.886 16.688 16.553 16.455
18 16.755 16.157 15.772 15.501 15.218 14.921 14.735 14.607 14.513
20 15.351 14.788 14.424 14.168 13.899 13.615 13.436 13.313 13.223

25 13.293 12.786 12.456 12.222 11.975 11.711 11.544 11.428 11.343

30 12.180 11.705 11.395 11.173 10.939 10.687 10.526 10.414 10.331
35 11.484 11.031 10.733 10.520 10.293 10.049 9.892 9.782 9.700
40 11.009 10.571 10.282 10.075 9.853 9.614 9.460 9.351 9.270

50 10.402 9.983 9.706 9.507 9.293 9.060 8.908 8.801 8.721

60 10.031 9.625 9.355 9.160 8.951 8.721 8.572 8.465 8.385
70 9.781 9.383 9.118 8.927 8.720 8.494 8.345 8.239 8.159
80 9.601 9.209 8.948 8.759 8.555 8.330 8.182 8.076 7.996

100 9.360 8.976 8.720 8.534 8.333 8.110 7.963 7.857 7.777
200 8.910 8.542 8.295 8.115 7.919 7.701 7.555 7.449 7.369
500 8.659 8.300 8.059 7.882 7.689 7.473 7.328 7.222 7.140
1000 8.579 8.223 7.983 7.808 7.616 7.400 7.255 7.149 7.067

00 8.500 8.146 7.908 7.734 7.543 7.328 7.183 7.077 6.994

 TABLE B.2 (Contini led)

1% Significance Level
p-6
n\m 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
10 86.397 83.565 81.804 80.602 79.376 78.124 77.360 76.845 76.474
12 46.027 44.103 42.899 42.073 41.227 40.359 39.826 39.466 39.206
14 32.433 30.918 29.966 29.309 28.634 27.936 27.507 27.215 27.004
16 25.977 24.689 23.875 23.311 22.729 22.126 21.753 21.498 21.314
18 22.292 21.146 20.418 19.913 19.389 18.844 18.505 18.273 18.105
20 19.935 18.886 18.217 17.752 17.267 16.761 16.445 16.229 16.071

25 16.642 15.737 15.156 14.749 14.324 13.875 13.592 13.397 13.254

30 14.944 14.118 13.586 13.211 12.816 12.398 12.133 11.949 11.814
35 13.913 13.138 12.635 12.281 11.906 11.506 11.252 11.074 10.943
40 13.223 12.482 12.000 11.659 11.298 10.911 10.663 10.490 10.361

50 12.358 11.661 11.206 10.882 10.538 10.167 9,1127 9.759 9.633

60 11.839 11.169 10.730 10.417 10.083 9.721 9.486 9.320 9.196
70 11.493 10.841 10.413 10.107 9.779 9.424 9.192 9.028 8.905
80 11.246 10.607 10.187 9.886 9.563 9.212 8.983 8.819 8.697

100 10.917 10.295 9.886 9.592 9.276 8.930 8.703 8.541 8.419
200 10.312 9.723 9.333 9.052 8.748 8.412 8.190 8.030 7.908
500 9.980 9.409 9.030 8.755 8.458 8.128 7.907 7.747 7.625
1000 9.874 9.308 8.933 8.661 8.365 8.037 7.817 7.657 7.534

oc 9.770 9.210 8.838 8.568 8.274 7.948 7.728 7.568 7.446

666
 TABLE B.2 ( ContinI/cd)
5% Significance Level
p-7
n\m c.; 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
10 85.040 84.082 83.426 82.755 82.068 81.648 81.364 81.159
12 42.850 42.126 41.627 41.113 40.583 40.257 40.037 39.877
14 29.968 29.373 28!~61 28.534 28.091 27.817 27.631 27.49j
16 24.038 23.519 23.158 22.781 22.389 22.145 21.978 21.857
18 20.692 20.222 19.893 19549 19.189 18.964 18.809 18696
20 18.561 18.125 17.819 17.498 17.159 16.947 16.800 16.694
25 15.587 15.202 14.930 14.642 14.337 14.143 14.009 13.9.tl
30 14.049 13.693 13.440 13.172 12.884 12.701 12.573 12.478
35 13.113 12.776 12.535 12.278 12.002 11.825 11.700 11.608
40 12.485 12.160 11.927 11.679 11.411 11.237 11.115 11.025
SO 11.695 11.386 11.165 10.927 10.668 10.500 10.381 10.292
60 11.219 10.921 10.706 10.475 10.221 10.056 9.938 9.850
70 10.901 10.610 10.400 10.173 9.923 9.760 9.643 9.555
80 10.674 10.388 10.181 9.957 9.710 9.548 9.432 9.344
100 10.371 10.091 9.889 9.669 9.426 9.265 9.150 9.062
200 9.812 9.545 9.350 9.138 8.902 8.744 8.629 8.542
500 9.504 9.244 9.054 8.846 8.613 8.456 8.342 8.254
1000 9.405 9.148 8.959 8.753 8.521 8.365 8.250 8.162
00 9.308 9.053 8.866 8.661 8.431 8.275 8.160 8.072

667
 TABLEB.2 (Continlled)
1% Significance Level
p-7
n\m 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
10 185.93 182.94 180.90 178.83 176.73 175.44 174.57 173.92
12 71.731 69.978 68.779 67.552 66.296 65.528 65.010 64.636
14 44.255 42.978 42.099 41.197 40.269 39.698 39.311 39.032
16 33.097 32.057 31.339 30.599 2~.834 29.361 29.039 28.806
18 27.273 26.374 25.750 25.105 24.435 24.019 23.735 23.529
20 23.757 22.949 22.388 21.804 2l.195 20.816 20.556 20.367

25 19.117 18.440 17.965 17.469 16.947 16.619 16.392 16.227

30 16.848 16.239 15.810 15.360 14.882 14.580 14.370 14.216
35 15.512 14.945 14.544 14.121 13.670 13.383 ll183 13.036
40 14.634 14.095 13.713 13.309 12.876 12.599 12.405 12.262
50 13.553 13.049 12.691 12.310 11.899 11.634 11.448 11.309
60 12.914 12.432 12.088 11.720 11.323 1l.065 10.882 10.746
70 12.492 12.024 11.690 11.332 10.942 10.689 10.509 10.374
80 12.193 11.736 11.408 11.056 10.673 10.422 10.244 10.110
100 11.797 11.353 11.034 10.691 10.316 10.070 9.894 9.761
200 11.077 10.658 10.356 10.028 9.667 9.427 9.254 9.123
500 10.685 10.230 9.987 9.668 9.314 9.078 8.906 8.774
1000 10.561 10.160 9.869 9.553 9.202 8.966 8.795 8.663

00 10.439 10.043 9.755 9.441 9.092 8.857 8.686 8.555

668
 TABLE 8.2 (Conrinued)
5% Significance Level
p=8
n\m 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
14 42.516 41.737 41.198 40.641 40.066 39.711 39.470 39.296
16 31.894 31.242 30.788 30.318 29.829 29.525 29.318 29.167
18 26.421 25.847 25.446 25.028 24.591 24.319 24.132 23.996
20 23.127 22.605 22.239 21.856 21.454 21.201 21.028 20.902

25 18.770 18.324 18.009 17.677 17.325 17.102 16.947 16.834

30 16.626 16.221 15.934 15.629 15.303 15.095 14.950 14.843
35 15.356 14.977 14.707 14.418 14.109 13.910 13.771 13.668
40 14.518 14.156 13.898 13.621 13.322 13.129 12.994 12.893

50 13.482 13.142 12.898 12.636 12.351 12.165 12.034 11.936

60 12.866 12.540 12.305 12.051 11.774 11.593 11.465 11.368
70 12.459 12.142 11.912 11.665 11.393 11.215 11.088 10.992
80 12.169 11.858 11.634 11.390 11.122 10.946 10.820 10.725

100 11.785 11.483 11.264 11.026 10.763 10.590 10.465 10.370

200 11.084 10.798 10.589 10.362 10.108 9.939 9.816 9.722
500 10.701 10.423 10.221 9.999 9.751 9.584 9.461 9367
lOOO 10.579 10.304 10.104 9.884 9.637 9,470 9.348 9.254

00 10.459 10.188 9.989 9.771 9.526 9.360 9.238 9.144

669
 TABLE B.2 (Conrinued)
1% Significance Level
p=
n\m 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
14 65.793 64.035 62.828 61.592 60.323 59.545 59.019 58.639
16 44.977 43.633 42.707 41.754 40.771 40.164 39.753 39.456
18 35.265 34.146 33.373 32.573 31.745 31.232 30.882 30.629
20 29.786 28.808 28.129 27.425 26.691 26.235 25.924 25.697

25 23.001 22.212 21.661 21.085 20.480 20.100 19.838 19.647

30 19.867 19.173 18.686 18.173 17.631 17.288 17.051 16.876
35 18.077 17.440 16.991 16.516 16.011 15.690 15.466 15.301
40 16.924 16.324 15.900 15.451 14.970 14.662 14.447 14.288
50 15.528 14.975 14.582 14.163 13.711 13.420 13.216 13.063
60 14.715 14.190 13.815 13.414 12.980 12.698 12.499 12.351
70 14.184 13.677 13.313 12.925 12.502 12.226 12.031 11.885
80 13.810 13.315 12.960 12.580 12.165 11.894 11.701 11.556
100 13.317 12.839 12.496 12.127 11.722 11.457 11.267 11.124
200 12.429 11.983 11.660 11.311 10.925 10.669 10.484 10.343
500 11.951 11.521 11.210 10.871 10.495 10.244 10.061 9.921
1000 11.800 11.375 11.067 10.732 10.359 10.109 9.927 9.787
00 11.652 11.233 10.928 10.597 10.227 9.978 9.796 9.656

67[1
 TABLE 8.2 ( Conrinued)
5% Significance Level
p = 10
n\m 10 12 15 20 25 30 35

14 98.999 98.013 97.002 95.963 95.326 94.9 94.6

16 58.554 57.814 57.050 56.260 55.772 55.44 55.20
18 43.061 42.454 41.824 41.169 40.762 40,485 .40.284
20 35.146 34.620 34.071 33.497 33.140 32.895 32.716

25 26.080 25.660 25.219 24.753 24.458 24.255 24.107

30 22.140 21.773 21.384 20.970 20.706 20.523 20.388
35 19.955 19.618 19.260 18.876 18.630 18.458 18.331
40 18.569 18.252 17.914 17.550 17.316 17.151 17.029

50 16.913 16.622 16.309 15.969 15.748 15.592 15.476

60 15.960 15.684 15.385 15.059 14.847 14.695 14.582
70 15.341 15.074 14.786 14.469 14.261 14.113 14.002
80 14.907 14.647 14.365 14.055 13.851 13.705 13.595

100 14.338 14.087 13.814 13.513 13.313 13.170 13.061

200 13.319 13.085 12.828 12.542 12.351 12.212 12.106
500 12.774 12.548 12.301 12.023 11.836 11.699 11.594
1000 12.602 12.379 12.134 11.859 11.674 11.538 11.432

00 12.434 12.214 11.972 11.700 11.515 11.380 11.275

671
 TABLEB.2 ( Continued)
1% Significance Level
p = 10
n\m 10 12 15 20 25 30 35
14 180.90 178.28 175.62 172.91 171.24 170
16 89.068 87.414 85.270 83.980 82.91 82.2 81.7
18 59.564 58.328 57.055 55.742 54.933 54.384 53.990
20 45.963 44.951 43.905 42.821 42.150 41.693 41.362

25 31.774 31.029 30.253 29.440 28.932 28.583 28.328

30 26.115 25.489 24.832 24.139 23.701 23.399 23.177
35 23.116 22.556 21.966 21.338 20.939 20.663 20.459
40 21.267 20.749 20.201 19.615 19.241 18.980 18.787

50 19.114 18.646 18.148 17.611 17.266 17.023 16.842

60 17.901 17.462 16.992 16.484 16.154 15.922 15.748
70 17.l24 16.703 16.252 15.762 15.443 15.216 15.046
80 16.583 16.175 15.738 15.260 14.948 14.726 14.559

100 15.881 15.490 15.069 14.608 14.305 14.088 13. f)25

200 14.641 14.280 13.889 13.457 13.169 12.962 12.803
500 13.986 13.641 13.266 12.848 12.569 12.366 12.210
1000 13.780 13.441 13.070 12.658 12.381 12179 12.023

00 13.581 13.246 12.881 12.472 12.198 11.997 11.842

672
 TABLE 8.3
TABLES OF SIGNIFICANCE POHrTS FOR THE BARTLETT-NANDA-PlLLAl TRACE TEST

----------------

tJ
I~ I 2 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

13 5.~9 ~. 250 3.730 3.~3O 3.229 3.OB2 2.970 2,581 2.808 2. 7~7 2.545 2.0431
15 5.567 ~.310 3.782 3. ~76 3.271 3.122 3.008 2.917 2.SA2 2.779 2.572 2.455
19 5.659 ~.396 3.858 3.5~6 3.336 3.183 3.066 2.972 2.895 2831 2.616 2 ~93
23 5.718 ~ . ...s3 3.91\ 3.595 3383 3.228 3.109 3013 2.935 2.669 2.650 2.52~
27 5.759 ~. ~95 3.950 3.632 3. AI8 3.261 3. I~I 3.045 2.966 2.899 2.677 2.5A8
05 33 5.801 ~.539 3.992 3.672 3.~56 3.299 3. 178 3. OBI 3.001 2.934 2.709 2.578
~3 5.SA5 ~.586 ~.037 3.716 3.~99 3.3~1 3.219 3.122 3.041 2. 97~ 2. 7~6 2.613
63 5.891 ~.6J5 ~.086 3. 76~ 3.5A7 3.389 3266 3.169 3.088 3.020 2791 2.657
83 5. 91~ ~. 661 ~. 112 3.790 3.573 3 ~15 3 293 3.195 3. II~ 3.046 2.818 2683
123 5.938 ~. 6SS ~. 139 3.818 3601 3. ~~3 3.321 3.223 3 1~3 3 075 2. SAl 2 713
2~3 5.962 ~. 715 ~. 168 3 SA6 3630 3 ~72 3351 3 25~ 3. 17~ 3.106 2. sao 2748
5.991 ~. 74-1 ~. 197 3.877 3.661 3.5O~ 3.J8.C 3.287 3.208 3. I~I 2.918 2.7SS
""
13 7.~99 5.~09 ~.S70 ~.09~ 3.780 3.555 3383 3.2.e 3.138 3.047 2.751 2.587
I 15 7.710 5.539 ~. 671 ~.I80 3.857 3.625 3.~.e 3.309 3.196 3. 101. 2.795 2 625
19 8.007 5.732 ~. 82~ ~. 3123.976 3.734 3.550 3.~05 3.287 3 ISS 2667 2.686
23 8.206 5.868 ~.935 ~.~09 ~ 06~ 3.815 3.627 3. ~78 3.356 3.255 2.923 2.735
27 8.3~9 5.970 5.019 ~. 131 3 878 3.686
~. -48J 3.53~ 3.~10 3.307 2.968 2.775
,01 33 8.500 6.080 5.111 ~.566 A.207 3950 3 75~ 3600 3. ~73 3.368 3.021 2 823
~3 8. 660 6.201 5.21~ ~.659 ~. 29~ ~.032 3.833 3.675 3. 5~7 3 ~39 3.085 2 SSI
63 8.831 6.333 5 329 ~ 76A ~ 393 A 127 3.925 3.765 3.63~ 3.525 3.163 2.955
83 8.920 6. ~04 5.392 ~ 823 A ~~9 A.181 3.977 3.815 3.68~ 3.57~ 3.210 3.000
123 9.012 6. ~7~ 5459 ~.885 A.5OB ~ 238 ~ 033 3 871 3.739 3.628 3263 3.052
2~3 9. lOB 6.556 5.529 ~.951 A.572 ~ 301 ~.095 3 932 3800 3.689 3323 3 113
"" 9.210 6.638 5 60A 5.023 ~ 6~2 ~.369 ~. 163 ~.OOO 3.867 3.757 3.393 3.185

tJ
~ 1 2 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 IS 20

I~ 6.989 5.595 5.019 ~.684 ~. ~58 ~ 293 ~.I65 ~.063 3.979 3.901! 3.672 3.537
16 7.095 5.673 5.OB2 A.738 ~.507 ~.338 ~. 207 ~. 103 ~.017 3.9~~ 3.702 3563
20 7.2043 5.787 5.177 ~.822 ~.583 ~.~09 ~. 27~ ~. 166 ~.on ~.002 3.751 3.606
2~ 7.341 5.866 5. 2~5 ~.883 A.639 ~. ~61 ~.323 ~.213 ~.I22 ~.046 3.790 36~
28 7. ~IO 5.925 5.295 ~ 929 ~ 682 ~.501 ~.362 ~. 250 ~.I58 ~.OBI 3.821 3.668
34 7. .e2 5.987 5.351 ~. 980 ~.73O L5~7 ~. ~06 ~.293 ~.200 ~. I"!I 3.857 3.'702
.05 ~~ 7.559 6.055 5. ~12 5.037 ~. 7SA ~.599 ~. 457 ~.342 ~.2.e ~. 169 3.901 3.7043
6.4 7.639 6.129 5.A80 5.101 ~.SA6 ~. 660 ~.516 ~.~ ~.305 ~.225 3.955 3.795
SA 7.681 6.168 5.517 5.137 ~. sao ~. 693 ~ . .s.9 ~.433 ~.338 ~. 257 3.986 3.826
12~ 7. 72~ 6.209 5.556 5. 17~ ~.917 ~.730 ~.585 ~.~9 ~. 37~ ~.293 ~.022 3.662
2~~ 7.768 6.251 5.597 5. 21~ ~. 957 ~. 769 ~. 62~ ~.508 ~. ~13 ~.333 ~.063 3.~
7 815 6.296 5.6.40 5.257 ~.m ~.812 ~.667 ~.552 ~, 457 ~.377 ~. 110 3.9.s.
""
I~ 8.971 6.855 5.970 5.457 5. 112 ~.662 ~.669 ~.516 ~.39O ~.285 3.939 3.7043
16 9.245 7.006 6.083 5.551 5. 195 ~.937 ~. 738 ~. 581 ~.451 ~.3A3 3.986 3.783
20 9.639 7.236 6258 5.698 5.326 5.056 ~.SA9 ~. 684 ~ . .s.9 ~.436 ~.063 USo
2~ 9.910 7.~03 6.387 5.808 5.-42~ 5. 1~6 ~.933 ~. 76.4 ~.625 ~.509 ~. 12~ 3.9OJ
28 10.106 7.528 6. -486 5.893 5.501 5.217 ~.m ~.827 ~.685 ~.567 ~. 17~ 3.9.e
34 10.317 7.667 6.598 5.990 5.588 5.298 5.076 4.900 ~. 756 ~.6J5 ~.233 ~.ool
.01 ~~ 10.545 7.821 6. 72~ 6.101 5.690 5.393 5.167 ~. 986 ~.839 ~. 715 ~.305 ~. 067
6.4 10.790 7.99~ 6.667 6230 5.809 5.505 5.27~ 5.090 ~.939 ~.813 ~.39~ ~. 151
SA 10. 920 8.088 6. 9~7 6.301 5.876 5.569 5.335 5.150 ~.998 ~.871 ~.~ ~. 203
12~ II. 056 8. ISS 7.032 6.379 5.9.e 5.639 5.~03 5.216 5.063 ~.935 ~.510 ~.26'3
2« II. 196 8.29~ 7. 12~ 6. ~63 6.028 5.716 5.~78 5.290 5.136 5.007 ~. 581 ~~

"" I\. 345 8.~06 7.222 6. s.s. 6.116 5.801 5.562 5.372 5.218 5.089 ~. 66-4 ~. ~19

673
 TABLE B.3 (Continued)
-~.-.-- --------~.~ - ---~ - --.
.. ...... ..------~-~-.--

P-4

a i'0~ml
I '...
2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 15 20
~--l-

15 B.331 6.859 6.245 5.885 5.642 5.462 5.323 5.; 12 5.119 5.04\ 4.119 4.6'11
.I 17
21
B.472
B.671
6952
7.091
6.31B
6.429
5.947
6.00
5.696
5.782
5512 5.369 5.:55 5.160
5.591 '5.443 5. ~2A 5.225
5.080
5.143
4.BII 4.654
4. f36.4 4.701
25 B.805 7.190 6.510 6.114 5. e.46
5.6-50 5.A9B 5.377 5.276 5.191 4.906 4.738
I 29 B.901 7.263 6.571 6.168 5.B96 5.696 5.542 5.41B 5.316 5.230 4.939 4.768

.OS I 35
45
OS
9. QO.l
9.113
9.229
7.~3
7.431
7.52B
6.640
6.716
6.&02
6.229
6.298
6.37B
5.952
6.01l
6,092
5.7<49 5.593 5.467 5.363
5 811 5.6$2 5.524 5.41B
5.663 5.721 5.592 5. .c&5
5.275
5.329
5.395
4.9&0 4.805
5.029 4.851
5.090 4.910
85 9.291 7.580 6.SA9 6.42' 6.1~ 5.923 5.761 5.631 5.523 5.432 5. 127 4.945
125 9.35A 7.635 6.899 6.1.6'1 6.179 5.968 5.~ 5.67. '<:.566 5.475 5.168 4.987
245 9.419 7.693 6.952 6.519 6.22B 6.016 5.852 5.721 5.613 5.522 5.216 5.0'lS
9.486 7.754 7.009 6.574 6.282 6.069 5.905 5.774 5.1.67 5. 576 5. '112 5.094
15 10,293 8. 188 7.276 6.737 6.373 6. lOS 5.89B 5.731 5.594 5.479 5.095 4.B74
17 10.619 8.360 7.401 6 SAO 6.462 6.ISA 5,971 5.799 5.658 5.539 5. I.... 4.916
21 II. 095 B,625 7.598 7,003 6 60A 6.313 6.089 5.909 5.762 5.638 5.225 4.987
25 11.42B B,818 7.744 7. 126 6712 6. All 6.1&0 5.995 5.W 5.716 5.290 5.044
I 29 11.672 B,966 7.858 7,222 6.798 6.490 6253 6.064 5.909 5.779 5.344 5.091
,01
II 35 H.938 9.131 7.987 7.332 6.897 6,581 6.338 6. 145 5.986 5.853 5.408 5. 149
t5 12.228 9,31B B.I35 7,460 7.012 6.688 6.439 6.241 6.079 5.942 5.47 5.221
&5 12.545 9,529 B.306 7.610 7,149 6.816 6.561 6.358 6.192 6.OS2 5.586 5.314
85 12.715 9.645 B, A02 7.695 7.227 6.890 6.632 6.426 6.258 6.117 5.646 5.371
125 12.893 9.769 8.505 7.7B7 7,313 6.971 6.710 6.503 6.333 6.190 5.715 5.439
! 245 13.080 9.902 8.617 7.889 7.408 7.062 6. 798 6.588 6.417 6. '113 5.796 5.519
13.277 10,045 8,739 8.000 7.513 7. 163 6.897 6.686 6.513 6.369 5.B92 5.616
""
p-5

II'
I~I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

I 16
IB
9.589
9.761
B.071
B.179
7.430
7.512
7.OS2
7.120
6,795
6.854
6. 60s
6.659
6.457 6,338 6.239
6.SIU 6. J8.4 6.2B2
6. ISS
6..196
5.B73
5.906
5.7!U
5.735
I 22
26
10.007
10.176
B.340
B.457
7.639
7.732
7. 22B
7.308
6.949
7.021
6.745
6.B10
6,58cS 6,458 6.352
6.647 6.516 6.407
6.263
6.316
5.961
6.006
5.7SA
5.B23
30 10.29B B.5.... 7.803 7.370 7.0n 6.662 6.696 6.562 6.451 6.358 6.042 5.856
.OS 36 10.429 B.641 7.663 7. AAO 7.141 6.92.2 6.752 6.616 6.503 6.408 6.086 5.B96
1.6 10.571 8.7.a 7.974 7.521 7.216 6.991 6.B19 6.680 6.565 6.<4686, 140 5.'45
66 10.724 B.B68 un 7.615 7,31,)3 7.075 6.899 6.757 6.640 6.541 6.208 6.009
66 10.805 8.933 8.1~ 7.667 7.353 7. 122 6. 94. 6·&02 USA 6.584 6.2.a 6,049
126 10.B9O 9.002 8.195 7.724 7.407 7.174 6.995 6.851 6.733 6.633 6.295 6.095
21.6 10.978 9.076 B. 261 7.786 7.466 7.232 7.OS2 6.907 6. 788 6.688 6.350
... 1\.071 9.154 8.332 7.853 7.531 7.296 7.115 6.970 6.851 6.750 6.414
6.150
6.217
16 Il.~ 9,451 8.521 7.966 7587 7.306 7088 6.912 6.767 6.&44 6.230 5.9B9
16 II. 902 9.642 8.658 8.077 7.682 7.39\ 7.165 6.983 6.833 6.707 6.2BI 6.D33
22 12.449 9.939 8.876 B.2S5 7.835 7,52B 7.291 7.100 6.943 6.B10 6.366 6.1!U
26 12.837 10.159 9.040 B.39O 7.95A 7.635 7.389 7.192 7.030 6.B93 6. .& 6.166
30 13.125 10.328 9.168 B.497 B.O.a 7.720 7.A68 7.266 7.100 6.961} 6.491 6.216
.01 I 36
46
13.442
13.790
10518 9.314 8.621
10.735 9. .c83 B.765
8.158 7.820 7.561 7354
B.2B7 7.939 7.673 7.460
7.183
7.2SA
7.040
7.137
6.644
6.SS9 6.217
6.355
I 66
66
14.176
14.385
10.9SA 9.681 B 936
11.122 9.793 9. 0J.4
B.4A2 8,083 7.608 7.589
B.531 8.167 7.888 7.666
7.409
7.483
7.258
6.752
7.330
6.BIB
6.m
6.51B
126 14.6!U 11. 270 9.914 9.1.2 B.63O B.260 7.977 7.752 7.567 7.412
6.895 6.592
2A6 14,839 II. 431 10.047 9.260 8.7AO B.J64 B.on 7.SA9 7.663 7.506 6.985 6.681
15.086 II. 60s 10.193 9.392 B863 B. &112 B.l92 7.96\ 7.773 7.615 7.093 6.790
""

674
 TABU~ B,3 (Continued)

n! 17
19
I

10.794
10.993
2

9.247
9,367
3

8.585
8.676
4

8. 193
8.268
5

7.926
7.990
6

7.728
7.785
7 8

7.573 7.448 7.344 7.256

7.625 7.49& 7.389 7,299
9 10 15 20

6.9511 6.778
6.990 6,808
23 11.282 9.556 8.817 8.386 8.093 7.878 7.711 7.576 7.464 7.369 7.048 6.858
27 IUM 9.684 8.922 8.475 81n 7.950 7.m 7.638 7.523 7.425 7.095 6,899
31 It. 630 9.78<& 9.003 8.545 8.234 8.007 7.830 7.688 7.570 7.471 7.134 6.934
.05 37 I\. 790 9.897 9.094 8.624 8.306 8.073 7.892 7.747 7.627 7.525 7.181 6.976
47 11.964 10.024 9.199 8.716 8.390 8.151 7.966 7.817 7.694 7.590 7.239 urn
67 I?. IS. 10.166 9.319 8.824 8.490 8.245 8.056 7.903 7.778 7.612 7.312 7.099
87 12. 255 .10.245 9.387 8.885 8.S.7 8.299 8.108 7.9S. 7.827 7.720 7.357 7.142
127 12.362 10.328 9.459 8.951 8.609 8.359 8.165 8.010 7.882 7.774 7.¥YI 7.193
247 12.474 10.417 90538 9,024 8. 678 8.425 8.230 8.074 7.945 1.836 7.410 7,254
co 12.592 10.513 9.623 9. 11)4 8.755 8.500 8.303 8.146 8.017 7.908 7.543 7.328
17 12.722 10.664 9.72t 9.157 8.767 8.478 8.252 8.069 7.917 7.788 7.351 7.093
19 13.126 10.874 9.873 9.277 8.869 8.567 8.332 8. 143 7.986 7.653 7.403 7.137
23 13.736 IL202 10.IH 9.469 9.034 8.714 8.465 8.266 8.100 7.961 7.490 7.213
27 14.173 11.«6 10.192 9.617 9.162 8.828 8.570 8.363 8.192 8.048 7.5111 7.275
31 14.501 11.635 10.433 9.734 9.264 8.921 8.655 8.442 8.267 8.119 7.621 7.328
.01 37 14.W 11.850 10.596 9.871 9.384 9.030 8. 7511 8.537 8.356 8.204 7.693 7.392
47 15.270 12.097 10.787 10. OJ2 9.527 9.160 8.878 8.652 8.466 8.309 7.783 7.474
67 15.723 12.382 H.OII 10.224 9.700 9.319 9.027 8.794 8.602 8.440 7.899 7.58\
87 15,970 12.542 II. 138 10.33.S 9.800 9.413 9.115 8.878 8.683 8.520 7.971 7,649
127 16.233 12. 715 11.278 10.457 9.912 9.517 9.215 8.974 8.776 8.610 8.05.5 7.129
247 16.513 12.903 I L 432 10.593 10. OJ7 9.635 9.328 9.084 8.883 8.715 8. IS. 7.W
co 16.812 13.108 11.602 10.745 10.178 9.770 9.458 9.210 9.008 8.838 8.274 7.948

2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

18 1l.961 10.396 9.n9 9.316 9.o.w 8.835 8.675 8.545 8.437 8.345 8.031 7.843
---
20 12. 18.4 10.528 9.817 9.396 9.109 8,896 8. 730 8.596 8.44 8.390 8.0~7 7.1Il4
2~ 12.513 10.731 9.972 9.525 9.~ 8. 996 8.821 8.680 8.563 8.4M 8.127 7.926
28 12,7'" 10.680 10.088 9.622 9.306 9.073 8.892 8.746 8.626 8.523 8.176 7.969
32 12.915 10.99" 10.178 9,699 9.374 9. 135 8.950 8.800 8.676 8.572 8,21(. 8. DO.!.
.05 38 13.102 11.123 10.281 9.787 9.453 9.20& 9.017 8.864 8.737 8.630 8.266 8.049
48 13.308 11.267 10.399 9.890 9.547 9.294 9.098 8.9~1 8.811 8.701 8.328 8.106
68 13.534 II. 433 10.537 10.012 9.658 9.398 9.197 9.036 8.902 8.789 8.407 8.160
88 13.657 11.52~ 10.61" 10.082 9.722 9.459 9.255 9.092 8.9511 8.BA2 8.456 8.226
128 IZ.786 11.623 10.698 10. 158 9.793 9.526 9.320 9.155 ~.018 8.903 8.513 8.:.:81
248 13.923 11.728 10.790 10.242 9.872 9.602 9.394 9.226 9.089 8.972 8.580 8.348
co 14,067 II. 8<&2 10.890 10.33.c 9.960 9.687 9.477 9.309 9.170 9.053 8.661 8.431
13..'314 II. 8<&1
10.895 10.321 9.923 9.627 9.395 9.206 9.049 8.915 8.440 8.188

i
32
38
\4.310
1·4097..
15.456
15.822
16.230
12.069
12."26
12.694
12.902
13.141
11.056
11.314
11.510
11.665
11.&45
10.448
10.655
10.815
10.943
!t.092
10. OJI
10.207
10.344
10.455
10.586
9.721
9.876
9.999
10.098
10.215
9.479
9.619
9.731
9.821
9.930
9.283
9."12
9.515
9.599
9.700
9.12\ 8.962 8.512
9.240 9.095 8.602
9.337 9.186 8.676
9.416 9.261 8. 738
9.511 9.351 8. 814
8.233
8.310
8.374
8.429
8.496
.01 16.688 13.416 12.056 11.269 10.742 10.357 111.061
48 9.824 9.628 9.463 8.9119 8.582
68 17.206 13.737 12.306 11.-'82 10.932 10. S32 10.224 9.978 9.776 9.605 9.033 8. 696
88 17.491 13.919 12 ....9 II. 605 It. Q.43 10.635 10.321 1Jl.070 9.W 9.691 9.110 8.768
128 17.796 1~.116 12.607 11.743 II. 168 10.751 10.431 10. 176 9.967 9.790 9.201 8.854
248 18.124 14.3J3 12.782 11.897 11.308 10.883 10.557 10.298 10.085 9.906 9.309 8.940
co 18.475 14.571 12.977 12.070 1l..c68 11,034 10.7OJ 10.439 10.223 10. Q.43 9.... ' 9.092

675
 TABLE B.3 (Continued)

• ~ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

19 13. 101 11.524 10.83.5 10.423 10.1"1 9.930 9.766 9.&32 9,521 9.0426 9. 100 8.904
21 13. 34& ll.W 10.9"1 10.509 10.21 .. 9.995 9.8204 9.685 9.570 9."12 9.136 8.935
25 13.710 IL889 1l.109 10, &47 10.333 10.101 9,920 9.714 9.652 9.550 9.198 8• •
29 13.m 12. 054 11.23510.75310• .42510.1114 9.996 9.844 9.718 9.612 9.249 9.032
33 1.... 163 12.180 11.334 10.837 10. ..99 10.250 10.057 9.902 9.m 9.663 9.292 9.070
.OS 39 1".371 12.323 11.4048 10.9~ 10.S6S 10.329 10.130 9.970 9.837 9.725 9.~ 9.116
49 1".61" 12..u 11.580 H.a..a 10.688 10... 23 10.218 10.053 9.917 9.801 9.409 9.176
69 IA.m 12. 67.. 11.7301 11.183 10.811 10.538 10.326 10.156 10.016 9.897 9...9<1 9.~
89 15.021 12.179 11.822 IU61 10.883 10.605 10.390 10.21810.075 9.955 9.SA7 9.3Oot
129 15.173 12.892 11.918 II.:W 10.962 10.680 10. ~ 10.288 10. 143 10.021 9.609 9.363
2049 15.335 13.015 12.023 11.442 11.05110.765 10.S44 10.367 10.221 11).098 9. .t82 9,436
... 15.507 13.148 12.13& II.SA9 1l.l52 10.662 10.638 10.45910.31210.1111 9.711 9.526
19 1... 999
12. 992 12.043 11.463 1l.060 10.75& 10.521 10.328 10.167 10.030 9.558 9.275
21 15.463 13.235 12.215 ILS98 lI.17A 10.857 10.610 10.409 10.2<11 1000W 9.612 9.321
25 16. 17113.620 12."91 IL819 il.360 11.021 10.757 10.543 10.366 10.216 9.704 9.399
29 16.701'1
13.910 12.703 11.991 IL507 11.15110.81" 10.651 10.467 10.310 9.7eo 9.445
33 17.100 1".137 12.81112.12811.62611.256 10.970 10.740 10.5S0 10.3&9 9.844 9.521
.01 39 17.5A9 1".398 13.067 12.290 IUM IU63 11.Q66 10.648 10.651 10.45 9.92" 9.591
<19 18. 0581".702 13.297 12.482 II. 935 11.536 11.227 II). 980 10.716 10,60' 10.0204 9.681
IS.058
"
£9
129
18. 640
18.962
\9.310
15. 261
IS."
13. 573 12. 716 12.143 11.725 11.403
13.733 12.853 12.265 11.838 11.509
13.909 13.005 12.403 11.965 11.630
11.146
11.2"7
11.362
10.934 II). 756 10.155
11.030 11).849 11).238
11.1"210.956 10.335
9.801
9.811
9.970
2049 19.684 15.729 1<1.106 13.17112.55912.11211.769 1\."9S II.VI 1l.083 \0.453 10.083
00 20.090 16. oao 1... 327 13.37112.73& 12.280 11.930 11.652 II.m 11.23310.597 \0.227

- ~
• 1 2 3 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

2\ 15.322 13.733 13.027 12.603 12.311 12.093 1\.922 11.782 11,666 11.56611.221 1l.013
23 15..04 13.897 13.1"7 12.700 12.393 12.1&4 11.965 II.IUG 11.719 11.616 11.2~ 1l.0.t5
27 16.033 I".ISA 13.3010 12.857 12.526 12.282 12.091 11.f37 11.8OB 11.699 1\.325 11.100
31 16.:wA 1... ~7 13.<117 12.978 12.631 12.37S 12.176 12.015 11.881 11.768 11.380 11.146
35 16. sao 1<1.<191 13.603 13.07S 12.716 12.451 12.245 12.079 1I.9AI 11.821 II.A26 ll.l66
.05 AI 16.8<13 1",669 13.737 13. 188 12. 816 12. SAl 12.328 12.156 12.01" 11.893 11. <182 1l.236
SI 17.140 1".Ma 13.895 13.323 12.936 12.651 12.430 12.251 12.104 1l.979 II.SSS 11.301
71 17.416 15.100 1<1.083 13. 486 13.083 12.786 12.556 12.371 12.21812.089 11.&50 11.388
91 17.662 IS. 23\ 1".191 13.5&1 13. 169 12.866 12.632 12."43 12. 288 12. 156 IUIO H.443
131 17.861 15.37S 1<1.31013.687 13.266 12.957 12.718 12.S26 12.368 12.2~ IU81 lUll
IS. 532
...
251 18.076
18.307 IS. 705
1<1.443 13.806
I4.S91 13.940
13.37613.061
13.501 13.180
12.81812.622
12.933 12.735
12.461 12.325 11.667
12.572 12.~ 11.972
11.59.(
11.700
21 17.197 IS.2~ 1".28<1 13.698 13.2158 12.980 12.736 12.537 12.371 12.22811.733 Il.m
23 17.707 IS. 507 1.....7613.84913, .. 13 13.088 12.832 12.624 12.44912.301 11.78911.478
27 18.505 15.9<1\ 14.788 1".096 13.621 13.268 12.'193 n.769 12•.sa.t 12.0426 11.885 11.559
31 19.101 16. 273 15.029 14.290 13.766 13."1313.123 12.888 12.693 12.52811.965 11.628
35 19.562 16.535 15.222 14.447 13.920 13.531 13.230 12.986 12.785 12.61<1 12.0l4 p.687
.01 .. I 20.088 16.839 15.448 1".6321".080 13.67"13.35913.10612.89112.720 12.\191\.761
SI 20.692 17.196 15.7181<1.855 14.27 .. 13.648 13.519 13.255 13.037 12.85212.229 II.MB
71 21. 39.. 17.623 16.0.t5 IS. 130 1".SI6 1".06713.722 13.445 13.21613.0204 12.37" 11.989
91 21.790 17.868 16.236 15.292 1<1.660 1".199 13.845 13.561 13.327 13.130 12.466 12.07"
13\ 22.221 18. 1.. 1 16.450 IS."7S 1".82" 1... 350 13.986 13.69613.456 13.25A 12.S77 12.171
...
251 22.692
23.209
18.444
18.783
16.690 15.683 15.012
16.9&4 IS.923 IS. 231
1".S25 1... 152 13.853 13.608 13.402 12.712 12.307
14.730 1".346 1".041 13. 791 IJ.5&1 12.1581 12... n

676
 TABLE BA
TABLES OF SIGNIFICANCE POINTS FOR THE ROY MAXIMUM ROOT TEST

Pr{ m ; nR ~ XQ } =a
p=2

~"'~ )5
It I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <; 10 20

13 5.-499 3.736 3.011 2.605 2.3-42 2.157 2.018 I. 910 1.823 1.752 1.527 I -407
15 5.56(' 3,807 3.078 2.668 2.-401 2211 2.069 l. 959 1.869 1.796 I 562 1<436
19 5.659 3.905 3.173 2.759 2.<487 2.293 2.148 2.033 1.9<40 1.86<4 I 618 148<4
23 5.718 3,971 3.239 2.822 2.548 2352 2.204 2.087 \.993 I. 915 1.66\ I 521
27 5.759 <4.018 3.286 2.868 2.593 2.396 2.2<47 2.129 2.033 1.95<4 1 696 I.SS2
.05 33 5.801 <4.068 3.336 2.918 2.6<43 2.<4<45 2.29<4 2.175 2.079 i. 998 1.736 I 588
<43 5.8<45 <4,120 3.391 2.973 2.697 2. <498 2.3<47 2.228 2.131 2.0.&9 I. 783 I. 631
63 5,891 <4. 176 3.<4<49 3,032 2.757 2.SS8 2.<407 2.288 2.190 2.109 1.640 1686
83 5.91<4 <4.205 3.eo 3.06<4 2.789 2.591 2.<4<40 2.321 2.223 2. 1<42 1.873 1.718
123 5.938 035 3.512 3.097 2.823 2.626 2.<476 2.356 2.259 2.178 1.909 1.7SS
2<43 5.962 <4.265 3 5-45 3.132 2.859 2663 2513 2.395 2298 2,217 1951 I 797
co 5.991 <4.297 3.580 3.169 2,897 2.702 2 SS<4 2.436 2.3<40 2.261 l. 998 1 8<47
13 7.<499 <4.675 3,610 3. o.ao 2.681 2.<432 1.2<49 2.109 l. 997 1907 1. 625 1<478
15 7,710 <4.834 3. 7<42 3.15-4 2.782 2.523 2.333 2.184 2.069 l. 973 I 676 1 519
19 8,007 5.06<4 3.937 3.325 2.936 2.66<4 2.<463 2.307 2.182 2080 I 758 I 587
23 8.206 5.223 <4.07<4 3."8 3.0<48 2.761l 2.559 2.397 2.268 2 161 I 823 I 6-41
27 8.3<49 5.339 <4.176 3 s.co 3.133 2.8<47 '1.63<4 2.468 2.335 2.225 I. 876 1.686
.01 33 8,500 5.<465 <4.287 3.6-42 3.221l 2.936 2.7\8 2.548 2.<412 2.299 1,938 17<40
43 8,660 5,600 4.<409 3755 3.33<4 3.037 2.IlIS 2.6<4\ 2.501 2. 186 2.0\3 \.607
63 8.831 5.7<47 <4.5<43 3.881 3.45<4 3.153 2.926 2.7049 2.607 2.488 2.105 1.891
83 8920 5.825 <4.616 3.950 3520 3217 2.989 :2 810 2.666 2.5-47 2.160 1.9<43
123 9.012 5,906 <4.692 <4.022 3,59\ 3.285 3.056 2,877 2.732 2.612 2.222 2002
2<43 9,108 5991 <4.772 <4. 100 3.666 3.360 3.130 2950 2.80-4 2.683 2.292 2072
co 9.210 6.080 -4.856 -4.182 3.7~7 3."0 3209 3029 2.&\4 2.763 2,373 2. 15-4

p=3
-'
2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13
"- 3.5-4-4 2.-430
1-4 6.989 -4.5\7 3.010 2.669 2.25-4 2.m 2.008 I. 919 1 639 1-491
\6 7.095 ... 617 3.63<4 3. 092 2.7-45 2·501 2.319 2.178 2,065 l. 973 1 682 I 526
20 7.243 ~. 760 3.767 3.215 2.859 2.608 2.-420 2.27-4 2. 156 2.059 1.751 lsas
2-4 7.~1 -4.a58 3.859 3.302 2.9-42 2.686 2.-495 2.~5 2.22-4 2.12-4 1.805 1.631
28 7.-410 -4.929 3.927 3.367 3.00-4 2.7-46 2.552 2.-400 2.277 2.176 I. 8<49 I. 669
.05 3-4 7.<182 5.00-4 -4.001 3.-439 3,073 2812 2.6\6 2,-462 2.338 2.23-4 1'(01 \.715
-4-4 7.559 5.086 -4.08l 3.517 3. 1-49 2.887 2.689 2.53-4 2.-408 2.303 \. 962 \.771
6-4 7.639 5. J73 -4. 169 3.60-4 3.235 2.972 2773 2.616 2.489 2.383 2,038 I 8<42
8-4 7.681 5.220 -4.216 3.651 3.282 3019 2.820 2.663 2.535 2.-429 2.082 \.885
12-4 7.72-4 5.268 -4,265 3.701 3.332 3.069 2.870 2.713 2..586 2.-479 2. \32 \.9~

2" 7.768 5.318 -4,317 3.75-4 3.386 3123 2.92-4 2.768 2.6<4\ 2.535 2.\89 L991
co 7.815 5.370 -4.371 3.810 3.-4-43 3.181 2.983 2.828 2.701 2.596 2.253 2.059
1-4 8.971 5.-416 -4. lilt :'.-412 2.978 2.680 2.<462 2.295 2.163 2.055 1.72-4 I.SS2
16 9.245 5.613 -4.265 3.5<18 3.098 2.787 2. SS9 2.38-4 2.245 2.\32 1.782 \. 598
20 9.639 5,905 -4.507 3. 757 3.28<4 2.956 2.}1-4 2.527 2.378 2.257 1.877 \. 676
2-4 9.910 6. III -4.681 3.910 3.-422 3.082 2831 2.636 2.<18\ 2.35.c 1.9,SA \. 7-40
28 10.106 6. 26.4 -4.81\ -4.026 3.528 3.180 2.922 2.722 7,562 2.-431 2.016 \.792
.01 ~ 10.3\7 6.-431 -4.955 -4.156 3.6-47 3.192 3.027 2.821 2.657 2.521 2.091 1.857
-4-4 10.5-45 6.61-4 50 1t6 -4.303 3,764 3.-420 3.1<18 2.938 2.768 2.628 2.182 1·937
6.4 10.790 6.at5 50 296 -4.169 3,9-40 3.568 3.291 3.075 2.901 2.757 2.295 2.0-40
8<4 10.920 6.923 5. 39} -4.560 -4.027 3.652 3,372 3. 153 2.977 2.832 2.363 2.103
12-4 II. 0S6 7.037 5.-49' -4,658 -4,120 3.742 3460 3,239 3.062 2.915 2.4-4\ .2. 117
2" I\. 196 7.m 5.601 4.763 4.221 3.641 3.556 3.33-4 3.155 3.008 2.530 226-4
co I\. 345 7.28<4 5,72S 4.875 4.331 3.948 3.663 3."0 3260 3.1\2 2.634 2.369

677
 TABLE BA ( Conrinlled)
- ...... ~ - ..... --~----. ~-------

p=~

a ;~,; 2 3 <4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 15 20

IS 8,33\ 5.211 <4.013 3.365 2.955 2.670 2.<459 2.297 2.168 2.063 \.736 \. S04
17 8.<472 5,336 <4,123 3,<46<4 3.045 2.752 2.536 2.368 2.235 2.126 I. 78A U03
21 8.671 5,517 4,287 3,613 3,182 2.880 2,655 2,481 2.341 2.121 1.86<4 1.670
25 8,805 5.6<4<4 <4,403 3.721 3,283 2.975 2.745 2.566 2,<422 2.30" 1.928 1-724
29 8.901 5,736 <4. <490 3.802 3.360 3,0<48 2,81<4 2.632 2, <486 2.365 1.979 l. 769
,05 ' 35 9.004 5,837 <4,585 3,893 3.<4"6 3. 130 2.893 2.7OB 2.559 2• .c36
2.040 1.822
<4S 9. \13 5,9<46 <4.690 3,993 3,543 3.22<4 2.98A 2.796 2.645 2.520 2.11<4 1.889
65
85
9.229
9.291
6,065
6,128
".806
<4.869
".106
<4.168
3.653
3.71<4
3.332
3.392
3,1)90
3.1<49
2.900
2.959
2.7"6
2.804
2619
2.677
2.206
2.261
1.974
2.026
125 9,35.c 6.195 <4.935 <4,234 3. 779 3...57 3.21.. 3.023 2.868 27..0 2.322 2.087
2.. 5 9 ... 19 6.265 5,005 <4.304 3,850 3,527 3.28A 3.093 2.939 2.811 2.393 2.157
00 9...88 6.338 5,080 ... 380 3.926 3.603 3.361 3,171 3.017 2.890 2."75 2.2..2
15 10,293 6.080 <4,5.c9 3. 7<4<4 3,2<4" 2.901 2.651 2. .c61 2.310 2188 1.812 1.618
17 10.619 6,308 <4.731 3,898 3,378 3.021 2.760 2.559 2 ..01 2.273 1.875 \.668
21 11.095 6,650 5,010 <4.137 3.5&9 3.2it 2,933 2.720 2.550 2.<412 1.981 \.754
25 11 ..28 6896 5.213 <4,315 3,748 3.356 3,067 2,8A.c 2,666 2.521 2.066 1.825
29 11.672 7,OBO 5,368 <4, .. 51 3.872 3,469 3,172 2.9"2 2.759 2,609 :- 137 \.BSA
011 35 1l.938 7,28A 5,542 ... 606 4,013 3.600 3,29.. 3.057 2.868 2.713 2.221 1.956
45 12.228 7.510 5.737 <4.782 <4.175 3.752 3..a7 3.193 2,998 2.837 2.326 2.0<48
65 12,545 7,762 5,95& <4.98A ",36" 3. 930 3. 607 3,356 3.155 2.989 2,<458 2.1"
85 12,715 7,899 6,080 5.096 .....70 ",031 3.704 3."50 3.2.. 6 3.078 2.536 2.2040
125 12.893 8.0<45 6.210 5,218 ",585 .. , \042 3.812 3.555 3.348 3,178 2.630 2,326
245 , 13. OB( 8,199 6,350 5.349 ",710 <4,263 3.930 3.67\ 3. <462 3.290 2.737 2.<430
.., II 13,m 8.363 6.500 5, ..91 ",848 ... 397 ".062 3.80\ 3. 59\ 3. .. 18 2.863 2.555

p=5

a I"n""m ,I 2 3 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20
,
,
i 'I
16 9.5&9 5,856 ","48 3,218 2.890 2,648
3,69" 2,"63 2.316 2,196 1.82.. 1.630
I 18 9,761 6.002 ".575 3.806
3.320 2.982 2.73" 2,542 2.390 2.265 1878 1. 67..
I 22 10.007 6.218 ... 765 3. ..n 3.128 2.869
3.978 2.669 2.509 2.378 I. 967 1.7 ..7
26 10.176 6.370 ... 903 3.593 3.237 2971
".IQ4 2.765 2,601 2.465 2.037 1.807
I 30 10.298 6. .c83 5.006 ... 200
3.683 3.321 3.051 2.842 2.67" 2.535 2.095 1857
36 10... 29 6,606 5.121 3,785 3."18 3,14oC
".307 2.930 2.759 2.617 2.165 1.918
osl, .c6 10.571 6.7 ..2 5.2"9 3.901 3.529 3,251
.....28 3. 03.c 2.859 2.7\" 2.250 1.99"
66 10.72<4 6.892 5.392 ",03.c 3.658 3,3n
<4.566 3.156 2.979 2.832 2.357 2.092
86 10.805 6.973 5.471 ... ~3
.... IOB 3.731 3...48 3.227 3.048 2.900 2. "21 2.152
126 10.890 7.056 5.55.. ".72.. .. 189 3.810 3,527 3. 30.. 3, 125 2.976 2.49<4 2.123
2..6 10.978 7,148 5,~3 ".812 ".276 3.897 3.613 3.390 3.210 3,061 2.578 2.306
.,., 11.071 7.2.... 5,738 ".907 ".371 3.992 3.7OB 3.485 3.304 3.157 2.676 2."07
II. 11. 53.c 6.701 ... 963 ".055 3."92 3. lOB 2.829 2.616 2.448 2.312 \.895 1.680
18 lL902 6.95.c 5. 163 ... 123 3.638 3.238 2.9-45 2.722 2.546 2."03 I. 962 1.733
22 12,4"9 7,340 5.473 ... <487 3.870 3.4oC6 3.135 2.896 2.707 2.554 2.076 1.825
26 12,837 7.620 5,703 4.685 <4.0<47 3.606 3.282 3.033 2.835 2.673 2. 169 \.902
30 13,125 7.632 5.880 4,8<40 <4. 186 3.733 3."00 3.1"2 2.938 2. no 2.2"6 1.9"
01 36 13.4oC2 8.069 6,079 5.016 4.346 3 88\ 3.537 3.271 3.060 2.886 2.339 2.046
~6 13790 8.335 6,306 5.2\9 ".532 ".053 3.699 3,"25 3.206 3.026 2,"56 2. , ..7
66 1".176 8.635 6.566 5.-45.. ... 750 ".259 3.89" 3.61\ 3.385 3.\98 2.604 2.279
86 14385 8.800 6.711 5.5U ".67" .. 377 ".007 3.720 3. ..90 3.30\ 2.695 2.362
126 1".606 8.9n 6.867 5.731 5.010 ".506 ".132 3.8A1 3.6OB 3. .. 16 2.800 2.461
2<46 14.839 9,165 7,036 5.888 5,159 ".650 ".272 3,978 3,7"1 3,547 2.92.. 2.579
00 15.086 9.367 7,218 6.060 5.32.. ",810 ",~8 ".132 3. 893 3.697 3.070 2.72..

678
 TABLE BA (COlltillUed)
------------------~----------------------------

-
..
--
a '~ I 2 3 <4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

\7 10.79<4 6. <470 <4.86\ <4.005 3.<468 3.098 2.827 2620 2<455 2.32J 1908 l. 693
19 10.993 6.634 5.001 <4.128 3.579 3.199 2.920 VOS 2.535 2.396 \. 965 \.7<40
23 \1.282 U80 5.216 <4.320 3.753 3.359 3.068 2.W 2.665 2.519 2.062 1.8\9
27 11.<463 7.056 5.372 <4. <462 3./l8.l 3. .c81 3.182 2.95\ 2.767 2.615 2.139 1.8&4
3\ \\.630 7.158 5. .c9I <4.57\ 3.9as 3.576 3.272 3.036 2.8<48 2.693 2.203 \.939
.OS 37 1\. 790 7.lJ<4 5.625 <4.695 <4.101 3.686 3.376 3. 136 2.9<43 2.7as 2.280 2.006
1,7 1 I. 961, 7. <495 5..77<4 <4.~ <4.235 3.813 3. <498 3.253 3.OS7 2.89<4 2.375 2.090
67 12.151, 7.675 5.9<4<4 <4.997 <4.390 3.963 3.61,3 3. 39<4 3. 191, 3.028 2.1,95 2.200
87 12.2'ss 7.711, 6.038 5.068 <4.<477 <4.0<48 3. 727 3. <476 3.27<4 .1. \07 2.568 2.268
127 12.362 7.878 6.138 5. las <4.573 <4.W 3. 818 3.566 3.363 3.195 2.652 2.3.c8
21,7 12.<47<4 7.989 6.2<46 5..291 <4.676 <4.21,<4 3. 920 3.667 3.<463 3.29<4 2.7<49 2.<4<41.
00 12.592 8.107 6.362 5.<4OS 1,.790 <4.357 <4.033 3.780 3.576 3. .c08 2.86-4 2.56\
17 12.722 7.296 5..360 <4.352 3.730 3.306 2.998 2.76<4 1,580 2.<431 I. 97<4 1.739
19 13.126 7.570 5.57<4 <4.53\ 3.885 3. <4<4<4 3.122 2.877 2.663 2.526 2.0<41. 1.795
23 13. 736 7.992 5..912 <4.817 ... 135 3.667 3.325 3.063 2· ass2.687 2. \65 1.892
27 14.173 8.303 6.16<4 5.03<4 1,.328 3.81,1 3. .c81, 3.210 2.993 2.816 2: 261, I. 97<4
31 I... S(U 8.. 5<4 I 6.360 5..20<4 ... 480 3.980 3.612 3.329 3.101,2.921 2.3<47 2.043
.01 37 1<4.865 8.808 6.583 5.<400 <4.657 <4.11,2 3.763 3.1,70 3.237 3.01,7 2.1,.c8 2.128
1,7 15.270 9.112 6.639 5.628 1,.86<4 <4.33<4 3.9<43 3.61.0 3.399 3.201 2.576 2.238
67 15..723 9• .csa 7.136 5.895 5..11\ <4.565 1,.161 3.81,8 3. 5983.393 2.739 2.363
87 15..970 9.650 7.303 6.01,7 5.252 <4.699 1,.289 3.971 3.716 3.507 2.81.0 2.<475
127 16.233 9.as6 7.1.8<4 6.213 5. .c08 <4.81,7 1,. <431 1,.108 3.aso 3.637 2958 2. ,58.C
21,7 16.513 10.079 7.682 6.395 5.580 5..012 <4.591 1,.261, 1,.0023.786 3.097 2.717
00 16.812 10.319 7.897 6.596 5.772 5.198 <4.772 <4.1,1.2 "'\77 3.959 3.261, 2.582

a
~ 18 11.961
I 2

7.063
3 I,

1,.3O.c
5 6 7

2.770
8

2.589
9 10 15 20

l. 989 1.753
5.258 3.708 3.298 2.999 2.<4<42
20 12. 18-4 7.2<43 5.1,11 1,. <437 3.827 3.1,06 3.098 2.861 2.671, 2.522 2.0<49 1.8112
2<4 12.513 7.516 5.61,7 1,.61,7 1,.016 3.580 3.258 3.011 2.81<4 2.653 '2.151 1.587
28 12.7<4<4 7.71<4 5.821 1,.803 <4.160 3.713 3.382 3.127 2.921, 2.757 2.235 1.956
32 12.915 7.863 5.95<4 <4.m <4.272 3.817 3."81 3.220 3.012 2.642 2.30<4 2.015
.OS 38 13.102 8.030 6.10<4 5..063 <4.<40\ 3.939 3.596 3.330 3.117 2.9<42 2.388 2.068
.c8 13.308 8.216 6.275 5.222 <4.'ss1 <4.081 3. 732 3.<461 3.2<43 3.063 2.1,92.2.180
68 13.53<4 8. ..26 6.<471 5..1.07 <4.727 <4.25\ 3.895 3.619 3.396 3.213 2.625 2.300
58 13.657 8. 5.. 1 6.579 5.511 <4.827 <4.3<48 3.990 3. 711 3.<486 3.301 2.706 2.376
128 13.786 8.665 6.697 5.62<4 <4.937 <4.<4'ss ".095 3.81<4 3.588 3."01 2.800 2. <465
2.c8 13.923 8.797 6.82<4 5..7<47 5.058 <4.573 ·UII 3.929 :".702 3.51<4 2.910 2.573
1<4.067 8.938 6.961 5..582 5.191 <4. 70s 1,.3..3 ... 060 3.833 3.6045 3. 0<41 2. 70s
""
18 \3.81<4 7.812 5.7<4" <4.6"0 3. 960 3.<498 3. \63 2.908 2.707 2.5045 2.050 1.797
20 , ... 310 8.164 5.971 <4.829 <4.124 3.6<42 3.292 3. 026 2.816 2.6<46 2.12<4 I. ass
21, \ ... 974 8.619 6.332 5.llJ 4.389 3.879 3.5D7 3.222 2.997 2.8\1, 2.250 t.956
28 15.~ 8.957 6. 60s 5.367 <4.595 .c.o65 3. 676 3.379 3.\43 2.951 2.355 2.0<42
32 15.822 9.218 6.818 5.'ss1 4.759 4.21 .. 3.814 3.506 3.262 3.063 2.443 2. \15
.0\ 38 \6.230 9.51<4 7. D63 5.765 1,.952 <4.390 3.rn 3.659 3.406 3. 199 2.,SS1 2.206
.c8 \6. 688 9.as2 7.3<46 6.015 5.179 <4.600 <4.173 3.8<43 3.581 3.366 2.688 2.32<4
68 17.206 10.243 7.679 6.313 5.0452 <4. ass <4.<413 <4.072 3.799 3.575 2. 866 2. .c81
58 17. <491 10."61 7.867 6.463 5.610 5.003 <4.55<4 <4.207 3.m 3.701 2.976 2.581
128 17.196 10.697 8.073 6.670 5.7as 5.169 <4.713 <4.360 <4.078 3.8.c6 3. 106 2.700
2<48 \8.124 10.95<4 8.298 6.878 5..980 5.356 <4.894 <4.535 <4.2.c8 <4.012 .3. 260 2.647
go \8• .c75 11.2lJ 8.5.46 7.108 6.200 5.567 5.099 <4.736 <4. <4<46 <4.207 3.<41.7 3.030

679
 TABLE B.4 (Continlleg)
---~-.----------

2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

19 13.101 7. 6~0 5.645 4. 59~ 3.9~1 3 ~93 3.166 2.916 2.719 2.559 2.067 1.812
21 13. 3~6 7.~ 5.8OB ~.737 ~. 067 3. 607 3.270 3.012 2.808 2.6043 2.130 1.863
25 13.710 8.132 6.063 ~.962 ~.270 3.792 3.~~1 3.171 2.956 2.782 2.238 1.9.)2
29 13.970 8.350 6.253 5.131 ~. ~25 3.935 3. 57~ 3.295 3.07~ 2.893 2.326 2.025
33 I~. 163 8.515 6.399 5.26~ ~. 5.47 ~.049 3.680 3.396 3. 169 2.96-C 2.~ 2.088

.OS 39 1~.377 8.701 6.566 5. ~16 ~. 688 ~. 181 3.806 3.515 3.283 3.092 2.~9O 2. 165
~9 I~. 61~ 8.912 6.757 5.593 ~.85~ ~.338 3955 3.658 3.~20 3.22~ 2.603 2.2~
69 1~.877 9.151 6.9T7 5.800 5. OSO ~. 5:16 ~. 136 3.832 3.589 3.388 2. 7~7 2.395
89 15.021 9.283 7.101 5.917 5.163 ~.6~ ~. 2~1 3.935 3.689 3.0486 2.836 2. ~78
129 15.173 9.~26 7.235 6.0~6 5.287 ~.755 ~.358 ~.050 3.802 3.597 2. 9~0 2.576
2~9 15.335 9.579 7.381 6.187 5.~2~ ~. t.89 ~.m ~. 180 3. 931 3. 725 3.063 2.695
00 15.507 9.745 7.5~1 6.342 5.577 5.040 ~. 6~0 ~.329 ~. 078 3. 872 3.210 2.8(5
1
19 I~. 999 8.0435 6. tl9~. 921 4. 185 3.685 3.323 3.().48 2.832 2.658 2.125 1.1!53
21 15. 463 8.7~3 6.357 5.119 ~.355 3.836 3.~58 3. 171 2.9~~ 2.762 2.201 I. 913
25 16.m 9.226 6.739 5.0439 ~. 634 ~. 08-4 3.682 3.376 3. 134 2.938 2332 2.018
29 16.700 9.589 7.030 5.687 ~.1!53 ~.280 3.861 3.5041 3.287 3. OBI 2.442 2.107
33 17.100 9.871 7.259 5.865 5.028 ~ . .u9 Hot 3.676 3.~1~ 3.200 2.535 2. 16-C
.01 39 17. 5~9 10. 19~ 7.52~ 6.115 5.2~ ~. 627 ~. 181 3.839 3.566 3.344 2.~9 2.280
~9 18. 058 10.565 7.833 6 387 5 . .a0 ~.85~ ~. 392 ~.037 3. 75~ 3. 523 2.795 2.~OS
69 18.~0 10.998 8.199 6.713 5.778 5.131 ~. 653 ~.26-C 3.990 3.7~9 2.986 2.573
89 18.962 II. 2~2 8.~OB 6 901 5.952 5. 29~ ~ 808 ~.0432 ~. 132 3.886 3. lOS 2.68()
129 19.310 11.5OB 8.638 7.109 6. 1~6 5. ~78 ~. 983 ~. 601 ~. 295 ~.~ 3.246 2.810
2~9 19.684 11.798 8.891 7.3~1 6.36~ 5.685 5 183 ~. 79~ ~. "83 ~.228 3. ~15 2.970
00 20.090 12.117 9.173 7.601 6.610 5.922 5.~13 5.019 ~. 703 ~. ~45 3.622 3.171

al~1 2
-
3 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

21 15. 322 8.761 6.395 5.158 ~. 392 3.869 3.489 3.199 2.970 2.785 2 217 I. 925
23 15. 604 8.979 6.577 5.315 ~. 531 3. 99~ 3.602 3.303 3. 067 2.875 2.285 1.980
27 16.033 9.320 6. 86~ 5.566 ~. 756 ~.199 3.790 3. ~77 3.229 3.028 2.~03 2.075
31 16.3~~ 9.573 7.OB2 5.759 ~. 931 ~.359 3.939 3.616 3.360 3.151 2.500 2.156
35 16.580 9.769 7.252 5.912 5.071 ~. ~88 ~.060 3.730 3.~67 3.253 2.581 2.225
~I 16. 6-C3 9.992 7.~48 6.090 5.23~ ~. 6~1 ~.203 3.865 3.596 3.376 2:682 2.311
.OS 51 17. I~O 10. 2~7 7.676 6.299 5. ~29 ~.82~ ~.376 ~.030 3. 75~ 3.5'0 2.810 2.~23
71 17. ~76 10.5043 7.9~~ 6• .s.a 5.663 5.0~7 ~.590 ~.235 3.95' 3.719 29n 2.572
91 17.M2 10.709 B. 097 6.691 5.800 5. 178 ~. 716 ~.358 ~.070 3.83.4 3.OBI 2.668
131 17.861 10.890 8. 265 6.850 5. 952 5. 32~ ~.&58 ~.~96 ~.206 3. 967 3.204 2.783
251 18. 076 It OB7 8.<150 7.027 6.122 5. ~90 5.021 ~.656 ~.363 ~ 122 3.350 2.925
00 18. 307 11.303 8.~ 7.22~ 6.315 5. ~79 5.207 ~. 6-C0 ~.5~6 ~.304 3.529 3. 102

21 17.197 9.534 6.851 5. ~70 ~. 62~ ~.051 3.636 3.322 3.075 2.8n 2.271 I. 962
23 17.707 9.867 7.107 5.682 ~.806 ~. 211 3.779 3.452 3.19~ 2.987 2.351 2.025
27 18.505 10.399 7.523 6.029 5. 107 ~. ~78 ~.021 3.672 3.397 3.175 2.m 2.137
31 19.101 10.805 7.8-46 6.302 5.346 ~.693 ~. 216 3.851 3.~ 3.330 2.6OB 2.233
35 19.562 11.125 8.103 6.522 5.5041 ~.868 ~. 376 ~.OOO 3.702 3.~60 2.709 2.315
~l 20.088 II. ~95 8.~OS 6.782 5.772 5.078 ~.570 ~. 180 3.871 3.619 2.835 2.~20
.01 51 20.692 11. 928 8. 761 7.093 6.OS2 5.335 ~.808 ~. ~03 ~. OBl 3.819 2.996 2.558
71 21. 39~ 12.441 9.190 7. ~73 6.397 5.~ 5.107 ~.686 ~.350 ~.076 3.211 2.745
9' 21. 790 12.735 9.0439 7.695 6.6()1 5.8.45 5.287 ~.857 ~.515 ~.234 3. 347 2.867
131 22.221 13.OS9 9.716 7. 9~~ 6.832 6.062 5. ~9~ 5.055 ~.7OS ~. ~18 3.510 3.016
251 22. 692 13.~17 10.025 8.225 7.09~ 6.310 5.732 5.285 ~.928 ~.636 3.707 3.201
00 23. 209 13.816 10.373 8.545 7.395 6.598 6.010 5.556 5.193 ~.895 3.952 3.~

680
 TABLE B.5
SIGNIFICANCE POINTS FOR THE MODIFIED LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST OF
EQUALITY OF COVARIANCE MATRICES BASED ON EQUAL SAMPLE SIZES
Pr{-21ogA* ~ X} = 0.05

ng \q 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.---~-- ~ -- ~- -~-

p=2
3 12.18 18.70 24.55 30.09 35.45 40.68 45.81 50.87 55.87
4 10.70 16.65 22.00 27.07 31.97 36.76 41.45 46.07 50.64
5 9.97 15.63 20.73 25.56 30.23 34.79 39.26 43.67 48.02

6 9.53 15.02 19.97 24.66 29.19 33.61 37.95 42.22 46.45

7 9.24 14.62 1946 24.05 28.49 32.82 37.07 41.26 45.40
8 9.04 14.33 19.10 23.62 27.99 32.26 36.45 40.57 44.65
9 8.88 14.11 18.83 23.30 27.62 31.84 35.98 40.06 44.08
10 8.76 13.94 18.61 23.05 27.33 31.51 35.61 36.65 43.64

p=3
5 19.2 30.5 41.0 51.0 60.7 70.3 79.7 89.0 98.3

6 17.57 28.24 38.06 47.49 56.68 65.69 74.58 83.37 9209

7 16.59 26.84 36.29 45.37 54.21 62.89 71.45 79.91 88.29
8 15.93 25.90 35.10 43.93 52.54 60.99 69.33 77.56 85.72
9 15.46 25.22 34.24 42.90 51.34 59.62 67.79 75.86 83.86
10 15.11 24.71 33.59 42.11 50.42 58.58 66.62 74.57 82.45

11 14.83 24.31 33.08 41.50 49.71 57.76 65.71 73.56 81.35

12 14.61 23.99 32.67 41.01 49.13 57.11 64.97 72.75 80.46
13 14.43 23.73 32.33 40.60 48.66 56.57 64.37 72.08 79.72

p-4
6 30.07 48.63 65.91 82.6 98.9 115.0 131.0
7 27.31 44.69 60.90 76.56 91.89 107.0 121.9 137.0 152.0
8 25.61 42.24 57.77 72.78 87.46 101.9 116.2 130.4 144.6
9 24.46 40.56 55.62 70.17 84.42 98.45 112.3 126.1 139.8
10 23.62 39.34 54.05 68.27 82.19 95.91 109.5 122.9 136.3

11 22.98 38.41 52.85 66.81 80.49 93.95 107.3 120.5 133.6

12 22.48 37.67 51.90 65.66 79.14 92.41 105.5 118.5 1315
13 22.08 37.08 51.13 64.73 78.04 91.16 104.1 117.0 129.7
14 21.75 36.59 50.50 63.96 77.14 90.12 103.0 115.7 1283
15 21.47 36.17 49.97 63.31 76.38 89.25 102.0 114.6 127.1
.. _ - - - - -

681
 TABLE B.5 ( COfllinLIed)
-~.-- --
flX \q 2 3 4 5 6 7 flK \q 2 3 4 5
-. --------.------- ..------------- --------
p= 5 p=6
8 39.29 65.15 89.46 113.0 10 49.95 84.43 117.0
9 36,70 61.40 84.63 107.2 129.3 151.5
10 34,92 58.79 81.25 103.1 124.5 145.7 11 47,43 80.69 112.2 142.9
12 45.56 77.90 108.6 138.4
11 33.62 56.86 78.76 100.0 120.9 141.6 13 44.11 75.74 lOS.7 135.0
12 32.62 55.37 76.83 97.68 I18.2 138.4 14 42.96 74.01 103.5 132.2
13 31.83 54.19 75.30 95,81 116.0 135.9 15 42.03 72.59 101.6 129.9
14 31.19 53.24 74.06 94.29 114.2 133.8
15 30.66 52.44 73.02 93.03 112.7 132.1 16 41.25 71.41 100.1 128.0
17 40.59 70.41 98.75 126.4
16 30.21 51.77 72.14 91.95 111.4 130.6 18 40.02 69.55 97.63 125.0
19 39.53 68.80 96.64 123.8
20 39.11 68.14 95.78 122.7

682
 TABLE B.6
CORRECTI0N FACTORS FOR SIGNIFICANCE POINTS FOR TJii SPHERICITY TEST

5% Significance Level
n\p 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 1.217
5 1.074 1.322
6 1.038 1.122 1.383
7 1.023 1.066 1.155 1.420
8 1.015 1.041 1.088 1.180 1.442
9 1.011 1.029 1.057 1.098 1.199 1.455
10 1.008 1.021 1.040 1.071 1.121 1.214

12 1.005 1.013 1.023 1.039 1.060 1.093

14 1.004 1.008 1.015 1.024 1.037 1.054
16 1.003 1.006 1.011 1.017 1.025 1.035
18 1.002 1.005 1.008 1.012 1.018 1.025
20 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.010 1.014 1.019

24 1.001 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.009 1.012

28 1.001 1.002 1003 1.004 1.006 1.008

34 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.005

42 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.003
50 1.000 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.002
100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2
X 11.0705 16.91 ~ 0 23.6848 31.4104 40.1133 49.8018

683
 TABLE B.6 (Continued)
1% Significance Level
n\p 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 1.266
5 1.091 1.396
6 1.046 1.148 1.471
7 1.028 1.079 1.186 1.511
8 1.019 1.049 1.103 1.213 1.542
9 1.013 1.034 1.067 1.123 1.234 1.556
10 1.010 1.025 1.047 1.081 1.138 1.250
12 1.006 1.015 1.027 1.044 1.068 1.104
14 1.004 1.010 1.018 1.028 1.041 1.060
16 1.003 1.007 1.012 1.019 1.028 1.039
18 1.002 1.005 1.009 1.014 1.020 1.028
20 1.002 1.004 1.007 1.011 1.015 1.021
24 1.001 1.003 1.005 1.007 1.010 1.013
28 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.005 1.007 1.009
34 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.004 1.006
42 1.000 L001 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.003
50 1.000 1.001 L001 1.001 1.002 1.002
100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.001
2
X 15.0863 21.6660 29.1412 37.5662 46.9629 57.3421

684
 TABLE B.7t
SIGNlflCANCE POINTS FOR THE MODIFIED LlKEUHOOD RATIO TEST I = Io
Pr{ - 2 log At ~ x} = 0.05
----~----

n 5% 1% n 5% 1% n 5% 1% n 5% 1%
----- - .. --~-- ----
p=2 p=3 p=5 p=6
2 13.50 19.95 4 18.8 25.6 9 32.5 40.0 12 40.9 49.0
3 10.64 15.56 5 16.82 22.68 10 31.4 38.6 13 40.0 47.8
4 9.69 14.13 14 39.3 47.0
5 9.22 13.42 6 15.81 21.23 11 30.55 37.51 15 38.7 46.2
7 15.19 20.36 12 29.92 36.72
6 8.94 13.00 8 14.77 19.78 13 29.42 36.09 16 38.22 45,65
7 8.75 12.73 9 14.47 19.36 14 29.02 35.57 17 37.81 45.13
8 8.62 12.53 10 14.24 19.04 15 28.68 35.15 18 37.45 44.70
9 8.52. 12.38 19 37.14 44,32
10 8.44 12.26 11 14.06 18.80 16 28.40 34.79 20 36.87 43.99
12 13.92 18.61 17 28.15 34.49 21 36.63 43.69
--
p=4 13 13.80 18.45 18 27.94 34.23
7 25.8 30.8 14 13.70 18.31 19 27.76 34.00 22 36.41 43.43
8 24.06 29.33 15 13.62 18.20 20 27.60 33.79 24 36.05 42.99
9 23.00 28.36 26 35.75 42.63
10 22.28 27.66 28 35.49 42.32
30 35.28 42.07
11 21.75 27.13
12 21.35 26.71
13 21.03 26.38
14 20.77 26.10
15 20.56 25.87
p=7 p=8 p=9 P = 10
18 48.6 56.9 24 58.4 67.1 28 70.1 79.6 34 (82.3) (92.4)
19 48.2 56.3 26 57.7 66.3 30 69.4 78.8 36 81.7 91.8
20 47.7 55.8 28 57.09 65.68 38 81.2 91.2
21 47.34 55.36 30 56.61 65.12 32 68.8 78.17 40 80.7 90.7
22 47.00 54.96 34 68.34 77.60
32 56.20 64.64 36 (67.91) (77.08) 45 79.83 89.63
24 46.43 54.28 34 55.84 64.23 38 (67.53) (76.65) 50 79.13 88.83
26 45.97 53.73 36 55.54 63.87 40 67.21 76.29 55 78.57 88.20
28 45.58 53.27 38 55.26 63.55 60 7813 87.68
30 45.25 52.88 40 55.03 63.28 45 66.54 75.51 65 77.75 87.26
32 44.97 52.55 50 66.02 74.92
34 44.73 52.27 55 65.61 74.44 70 77.44 86.89
60 65.28 74.06 75 77.18 86.59

tEntries in parentheses have been interpolated or extrapolated lllto Korin's table.

p - number of variates; N = number of observations; n = N - 1. Aj = n loglIol -
o
np - n loglSI + n tr(SI I), where S is the sample ~ovariance matrix.
685
 References

At the end of each reference in brackets is a list of sections in which that

reference is used.

Abramowitz, Milton, and lrene Stegun (1972), Handbook of Mathematical Functions

with Formulas, Graphs, and Matflematical Tables, Nationa1 Bureau of Standards.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [8.5]
Abruzzi, Adam (1950), Experimental Procedures and Criteria for Estimating and Evaluat-
ing Industrial Productivity, doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Library. [9.7,
9.P]
Adrian, Robert (1808), Research concerning the probabilities of the errors which
happen in making observations, etc., The Analyst or Mathematical Museum, 1,
93-109.11.2]
Abn, S. K., and G. C. Reinsel (1988), Nested reduced-rank autoregressive models for
multiple time series, Journal of Amen'can Statistical Association, 83, 849-856.
[12.7]
Aitken, A. C. (1937), Studies in practical mathematics, II. The evaluation of the latent
roots and latent vectors of a matrix, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
57,269-305. [11.4)
Amemiya, Yasuo, and T. W. Anderson (1990), Asymptotic Chi-square tests for a large
class of factor analysis models, Annals of Statistics, 18, 1453-1463. [14.6]
Anderson, R. L., and T. A. Bancroft (1952), Statistical Theory in Research, McGraw-
Hill, New York. [8.P]
Anderson, T. W. (1946a), The non-central Wishart distribution and certain prOblems
of multivariate statistics, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 17,409-431. (Correc-
tion, 35 (1964), 923-924.) [14.4]
Anderson, T. W. (1946b), Analysis of multivariate variance, unpublished. [10.6]

An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Third Edition. By T. W. Anderson

ISBN 0-471-36091-0 Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

687
688 REFERENCES

Anderson, T. w. (1950), Estimation of the parameters of a single ~quation by tile

limited· information maximum·likelihood method, Statistical Inference in Dynamic
Economic Models (Tjalling C. Koopmans, edJ John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York. [12.8]
Ancferson, T. W. (1951a), Classification by multivariate analysis, Pyschometrika, 16,
31-50. [6.5, 6.9]
Anderson, T. W. (1951b), Estimating linear restrictions on regression coefficients for
multivariate normal distributions, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 327-351.
(Correction, Annals of Statistics, 8 (1980), 1400J [12.6, 12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (I 951 c), The asymptotic distribution of certain characteristic roots
and vectors, Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical
Statistics and Probability (Jerzy Neyman, edJ, University of California, Berkeley,
105-130. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1955a), Some statistical problems in relating experimental data to
predicting performance of a production process, Journal of the American Statisti-
cal Association, 50, 163-177. [8.P]
Anderson, T. W. (1955b), The integral of a symmetric unimodal function over a
symmetric convex set and some probability inequalities, Proceedings of the Ameri·
can Mathematical Society, 6, 170-176. [8.10]
Anderson, T. W. (1957), Maximum likelihood estimates for a multivariate normal
distribution when some obervations are missing, Journal of the American Statisti-
cal Association, 52, 676-687. [4.P]
Anderson, T. W. (1963a), Asymptotic theory for principal component analysis, Annals
of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 122-148. [11.3, 11.6, 11.7, 13.5]
Anderson, T. W. (1963b), A test for equality of means when covariance matrices are
unequal, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 671-672. [5.P]
Anderson, T. W. (1965a), Some optimum confidencL bounds for roots of determinan·
tal equations, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 468-488. [11.6]
Anderson, T. W. (1965b), Some properties of confidence regions and tests of parame-
ters in multivariate distributions (with discussion), Proceedings of the IBM Scien·
tific Computing Symposium in Statistics, October 21-23, 1963, IBM Data Process·
ing Division, White Plains, New York, 15-28. [11.6]
Anderson, T. W. (1969), Statistical inference for covariance matrices with linear
structure, Multivariate Analysis /I (P. R. Krishnaiah, edJ, Academic, New York,
55-66. [3.P]
Anderson, T. W. (1971), The Statistical Analysis of Time Series, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York. [8.11]
Anderson, T. W. (1973a), Asymptotically efficient estimation of covarian~e matrices
with linear structure, Annals of Statistics, 1, 135-141. [14.3]
Anderson, T. W. (1973b), An asymptotic expansion of the distribution of the Studen·
tized classification statistic W, Annals of Statistics, 1, 964-972. [6.6]
Anderson, T. W. (1973c). Asymptotic evaluation of the prohabiIitic~ of mil;dassifica-
tion by linear discriminant functions, Discn'minant Analysi'l and Applications
(T. CacouIlos, ed.), Academic, New York, 17-35. [6.6]
REFERENCES 689

Anderson, T. W. (1974), An asymptotic expansion of the distribution of the limited

information maximum likelihood estimate of a coefficient in a simultaneous
equation system, Journal of the Americall Statistical Association, 69. 565-573.
(Correction, 71 (1976), 1010J [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1976), Estimation of linear functional relationships: approximate
distributions and connections with simultaneous equations in econometrics (with
discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B. 38, 1-36. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1977), A~ymptotic expansiol1!! of the distributions of estimates in
simultaneous equations for alternative parameter sequences, Economerrica. 45,
509-518. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1984a), Estimating linear statistical relationships. Atl1wls of SraIlS-
tics, 12, 1-45. [10.6, 12.6, 12.7, 14.11
Anderson, T. W. (1984b), Asymptotic distribution of an estimator of linear functional
relationships, unpublished. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1987), Multivariate linear relations, Proceedings of rhe Sl!cond
International Tampere Conference in Staristics (Tarmo Pukkila and Simo Puntanen.
eds.), Tampere, Finland, 9-36. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1989a), The asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio criterion
for testing rank in multivariate components of variance, Journal of Mulrivariate
Analysis, 30, 72-79. [10.6, 12.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1989b), Th ~ asymptotic distribution of characteristic roots and
vectOrs in multivariate components of variance, Contributions to Probabilily and
Statistics: Essays in Honor of Ingram Olkin (Leon Jay GIeser, Michael D. Perlman,
S. James Press, and Allan R. Sampson. eds.). Springer Verlag. New York.
177-196. [13.6]
Anderson, T. W. (1989c), Linear latent variable models and covariance structures.
10u.nzaf of Econometrics, 41, 91-119. [Corr\!ction 43 (1990),395.] [I::!.8]
Anderson, T. W. (993), Nonnormal multivariate distributions: Inference based on
elHptically contoured distributions, Multivariate Analysis: Fmllre DirectiollS (c. R.
Rao, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1-25. [3.6]
Anderson, T. W. (1994), Inference in linear models. Proceedings of [he International
Symposium on Multivariate Analysis and its Ayplications (T. W. Anderson. K. T.
Fang, and 1. Olkin, eds.), Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1-20. [12.7, 12.8,
14.3]
Anderson, T. W. (1999a), Asymptotic theory for canonical correlation analysis. .lour~
nal of MulcivariateAnalysis, 70,1-29, [13.7]
Anderson, T. W. (1999 b). Asymptotic distribution of the reduced rank regression
estimator under general conditions. Annals of Statistics. 27. 1141-1154. [13.7]
Anderson, T. W. (2002), Specification and misspecification in reduced rank regres-
sion, Sankhya, 64A, 1-13, [12.7]
Anderson, T. W., and Yasuo Amemiya (1988a), The asymptotic normal distribution of
cstimmors in fact(1f analysis under gene nil condition~. Allllals of Srari.'irk~. 16.
759-771. [14.6]
690 REFERENCES

Anderson, T. W., and Yasuo Amemiya (1988b), Asymptotic distributions in factor

analysis and linear structural relations, Proceedings of the Internati, mal Conference
on Advances in Multivariate Statistical Analysis (S. Das Gupta and 1. K. Ghosh,
eds.), Indian Statistical Institute. Calcutta, 1-22. [14.6]
Anderson, T. W., and R. R. Bahadur (1962), Classification into two multivariate
normal distlibutions with different covariance matrices, Annals of Mathematical
Stati~tics. 33, 420-43 I. [6.10]
Ander!ion. T. W., and Kai-Tai Fang (1990a), On the theory of multivariate elliptically
contoured distributions and their applications, Statistical Inference in Elliptically
COlltoured and Related Distributions (Kai-Tai Fang and T. W. Anderson, eds.),
Allerton Press, Inc., New York, 1-23. [4.5]
Anderson. T. W., and Kai-Tai Fang (1990b), Inference in multivariate elliptically
contoured di!itributions based on maximum likelihood, Statistical Inference in
J:::lliptical(v Contoured and Related Distributions (Kai-Tai Fang and T. W. Ander-
son. edsJ. Allerton Press, Inc., New York, 201-216. [3.6]
Anderson. T. W., and Kai-Tai Fang (1992), Theory and applications of elliptically
contoured and related distributions, The Development of Statistics: Recent Contri-
hurioll.\· from China (X. R. Chen, K. T. Fang, and C. C. Yang, eds.), Longman
Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, 41-62. [10.11]
Anderson, T. W .. Kai-Tai Fang, and Huang Hsu (1986), Maximum likelihood esti-
mates and likelihood-ratio criteria for multivariate elliptically contoured distribu-
tions, Canadian Journal of Statistics, 14, 55-59. [Reprinted in Statistical Inference
in Elliptically Contoured and Related Distributions (Kai-Tai Fang and T. W.
Anderson. eds.), Allerton Pres.;, Inc., New York, 1990, 217-223. [3.6]
Anderson. T W., Somesh Das Gupta, and George P. H. Styan (1972), A Bibliography
oj" Mlzltivanate Statistical Analysis, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. (Reprinted by
RObert E. Krieger, Malabar, Florida, 1977.) [Preface]
Anderson, T. W., Naoto Kunitomo, and Takamitsu Sawa (1983a), Evaluation of the
distribution function of the limited information maximum likelihood estimator,
Econometrica, 50, 1009-1027. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W., Naoto Kunitomo, and Takamitsu Sawa (1983b), Comparison of the
densities of the TSLS and L1MLK estimators, Global Econometrics, Essays in
Honor of Lawrence R. Klein (F. Gerard Adams and Bert Hickman, eds.), MIT,
Cambridge, MA, 103-124. [12.7]
Ander~on. T. W., and I. Olkin (1985), Maximum Iikelil;ood estimation of the parame-
ters of a multivariate normal distribution, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 70,
147--17I. [3.2]
Anderson, T. W .• and Michael D. Perlman (1987), Consistency of invariant tests for
the multivariate analysis of variance, Proceedings of the Second International
Tampere Conference in Statistics (Tarmo Pukkila and Simo Puntaner, eds.),
Tampere, Finland, 225-243. [8.10]
Anderson, T. W., and Michael D. Perlman (1993), Parameter consistency of invariant
te~t~ for MANOVA llnd related multivariate hypotheses, Statistics and Probability:
A Raghu Raj Bahadur FestschiJt (1. K. Ghosh, S. K. Mitra, K. R. Parthasarathy,
and B. L. S. Prakasa Rao, eds.), Wiley Eastern Limited, 37-62. [8.10]
REFERENCES 691

Anderson, T. W., and Herman Rubin (1949), Estimation of the parameters of a single
equation in a complete system of stochastic equations, Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 20, 46-63. [Reprinted in Readings in Econometric Theory (J. Malcolm
Dowling and Fred R. Glahe, eds.), Colorado Associated University, 1970,
358-375.] [12.8]
Anderson, T. W., and Herman Rubin (1950), The asymptotic properties of estimates
of the parameters of a single equation in a complete system of stochastic
equations, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 570-582. [Reprinted in Readings
in Econometric Theory (J. Malcolm Dowling and Fred R. Glahe, eds.), Colorado
Associated University, 1970, 376-388.] [12.8]
Anderson, T. W., and Herman Rubin (1956), Statistical inference in factor analysis,
Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Proba-
bility (Jerzy Neyman, ed.), Vol. V, University of California, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 11] -150. [14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6]
Anderson, T. W., and Takamitsu Sawa (1973), Distributions of estimates of coeffi-
cients of a single equation in a simultaneous system and their asymptotic
expansiuns, Econometrica, 41, 683-714. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W., and Takamitsu Sawa (1977), Tables of the distribution of the
maximum likelihood estimate of the slope coefficient and approximations, Tech-
nical Report No. 234, Economics Series, Institute for Mathematical Studies in
the Social Sciences, Stanford University, April. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W., and Takamitsu Sawa (1979), Evaluation of the distribution function
of the two-stage least squares estimate, Econometrica, 47, 163-1S2. [12.7]
Anderson, T. W., and Takamitsu Sawa (1982), Exact and approximate distributions of
the maximum likelihood estimatOr of a slope coefficient, Journal of the Royal
Statisti-::al Society B, 44, 52-62. [12.7)
Anderson, T. W., and George P. H. Styan (1982), Cochran's theorem, rank additivity
and trlpotent matrices, Statistics and Probability: Essays in Honor of C. R. Rao
(G. Kallianpur, P. R. Krishllaiah, and J. K. Ghosh, eds.), North-Holland, Amster-
dam, 1-23. [7.4)
Anderson, T. W., and Akimichi Takemura (1982), A new proof of admissibility of
tests in multivariate analysis, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 12, 457-468. [8.10)
Andersson, Steen A., David Madigan, and Michael D. Perlman (2001), Alternative
Markov properties for chain graphs, Scandinauianlournal of Statistics, 28, 33-85.
[15.2)
Barnard, M. M. (1935), The secular variations of skull characters in four series of
Egyptian skulls, Annals of Eugenics, 6, 352-371. [8.8]
Barndorff-Nielson, O. E. (1978), Infonnation and Exponential FamiUes in Statistical
Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York. [15.5]
Barnes, E. W. (1899), The theory of the gamma function, Messenger of Mathematics,
29, 64-129. [8.5]
Bartlett, M. S. (1934), The vector representation of a sample, Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society, 30, 327-340. [8.3]
Bartlett, M. S. (1937a), Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests, Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A, 160, 268-282. [10.2)
692 REFERENCES

Bartlett, M. S. (1937b), The statistical conception of mental factors, British Journal of

Psychology, 28, 97-104. [14.7]
Bartlett, M. S. (1938), Further aspects of the theory of multiple regression, Proceed-
ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 34, 33-40. [14.7]
Bartlett, M. S. (1939), A note on tests of significance in multivariate analysis,
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 180-185. [7.2, 8.6)
Bartlett, M. S. (1947), Multivariate analysis, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Supplement, 9, 176-197. [8.8]
Bartlett, M. S. (1950), 1 csts of significance in factor analysis, Bn'tish Journal of
Psychology (Statistics Section), 3, 77-85. [14.3]
Basmann, R L. (1957), A generalized classical method of linear estimation of
coefficients in a structural equation, Econometrica, 25, 77-83. [12.8]
Basmann, R. L. (1961), A note on the exact finite sample frequency functions of
generalized classical linear estimators in two leading overidentified cases, Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 56, 619-636. [12.8]
Basmann, R L. (1963), A note on the exact finite sample frequency functions of
generalized classical linear estimators in a leading three-equation case, Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 58, 161-171. [12.8]
Bennett, B. M. (1951), Note on a solution of the generalized Behrens-Fisher
problem, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 2, 87-90. [5.5)
Berger, J. O. (1975), Minimax estimation of location vectors for a wide class of
densities, Annals of Statistics, 3, 1318-1328. [3.5)
Berger, J. O. (1976), Admissibility results for generalized Bayes estimators of coordi-
nates of a location vector, A~nals of Statistics, 4, 334-356. [3.5]
Berger, J. O. (1980a), A robust generalized Bayes estimator and confidence region for
a multivariate normal mean, Annals of Statistics, 8, 716-761. [3.5]
Berger, J. O. (1980b), Statistical Decision Theory, Foundations, Concepts and Methods,
Springer-Verlag, New York. [3.4, 6.2, 6.7]
Berndt, Ernst R, and Eugene Savin (1977), Conflict among criteria for testing
hypotheses in the multivariate linear regression mOdel, Econometrica, 45,
1263-1277. [8.6]
Bhattacharya, P. K. (1966), Estimating the mean of a multivariate normal population
with general quadratic loss function, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37,
1819-1824. [3.5]
BirnbaUm, Allan (1955), Characterizations of complete classes of tests of some
multiparametric hypotheses, with applications to likelihood ratio tests, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 26, 21-36. [5.6, 8.10)
Bjorck, A., and G. Golub (1973), Numerical methods for computing angles between
IilJear subs paces, Mathematics of Computation, 27, 579-594. [12.3]
Blackwell, David, and M. A. Girshick (1954), Theory of Games and Statistical Deci-
sions, John Wiley & Sons, New York. [6.2, 6.7)
Blalock, H. M., Jr (edJ (1971), Causal Models in the So :ial Sciences, Aldine-Atheston,
Chicago. [15.1]
Bonnesl:n, T., and W. Fenchel (1948), Theorie der Konve.xen Korper, Chelsea, New
York. [8.10)
REFERENCES 693

Bose, R. C. (1936a), On the exact distribution and moment-coefficients of the

D 2-statistic, Sankya, 2, 143-154. [3.3]
Bose, R. C. (1936b), A note on the distribution of differences in mean values of twO
samples drawn from two multivariate normally distributed populations. and the
definition of the D 2-statistic, Sankhya, 2, 379-384. [3.3)
Bose, R. c., and S. N. Roy (]938), The distribution of the studentised Dl-~tatistic.
Sankhyii, 4, 19-38. [5.4)
Bowker, A. H. (1960), A representation of Hotelling's T2 and Anderson's c1a!>~ifica­
tion statistic W in terms of simple statistics, Contributiolls to Prohability alld
Statistics 0. aIkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow and H. B. Mann.
eds.), Stanford University, Stanford. California, 142-149. [5.2)
Bowker, A. H., and R. Stigreaves (196 I), An asymptotic expansion for the distrihution
function of the W-classification statistic, Studies in /rem Analysis alld Predictioll
(Herbert Solomon, ed.), Stanford University, Stanford, California, 293-310. [6.6]
Box, G. E. P. (1949), A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria,
Biometrika, 36, 317-346. [8.5,9.4, 10.4, 10.5)
Bravais, Auguste (1846), Analyse mathematique sur les probabiliu!s des erreurs de
situation d'un pOint, Memoires Presentes par Divers Savants ii I'Academie RG)'ale
des Sciences de l'lnstitut de France, 9, 255-332. [1.2)
Brown, G. W. (1939), On the power of the L) test for equality of several variances,
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 119-128. [10.2)
Browne, M. W. (1974), Generalized least squares estimates in the analysis of covari-
ance structures, South African Statistical Journal, 8, 1-24. [14.3)
Chambers, Juhn M. (977), Computational Methods for Data Allal,\'sis, John Wiley &
Sons, New York. [12.3)
Chan, Tony F., Gene H. Golub, and Randall 1. leVeque (198]), Algorithms for
computing the sample variance: analysis and recommendations, unpublished.
[3.2)
Chernoff, Herman (1956), Large sample theory: parametric case, Amlals of Mathemat-
ical Statistics, 27, 1 - 22. [8.6)
Chernoff, Herman, and N. Divinsky (1953), The computation of maximum likelihood
estimates of linear struc"tural equations, Studies in Econometric Method (W. C.
Hood and T. C. Koopmans, edsJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. [12.8)
Chu, S. Sylvia, and K. C. S. Pillai (1979), Power comparisons of two-sided lests of
equality of two covariance matrices based on six criteria. Annals of the lllstitllte oj
Statistical Mathematics, 31, 185-205. [10.6)
Chung, Kai Lai (1974), A Course in Probability Theo,)', 2nd ed., Academic. New York.
[2.2)
C1emm, D. S., P. R. Krishnaiah, and V. B. Waikar (1973). Tables for the extreme
roots of the Wishart matrix, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 2.
65-92. [10.8)
Clunies-Ross, C. W., and R. H. Riffenburgh (1960), Geometry and linear discrimina-
tion, Biometrika, 47, 185-189. [6.10)
Cochran, W. G. (1934), The distribution of quadratic forms in a normal syslenl. wilh
applications to the analysis of covariance, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosoph.
ical Society, 30, 178-191. [7.4)
694 REFERENCES

Constantine. A. G. (1963), Some non*central distribution problems in multivariate

analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 1270-1285. [12.41
Const<1ntine. A. G. (l96b). The distribution of Hotelling's generalised Ttf, Annals of
Mathemarical Statistics, 37, 215-225. [8.6]
Consul. P. C. (1966), On the exact distributions of the likelihood ratio criteria for
testing linear hypotheses about regression coefficients, Annals of Mathematical
Srarisrics. 37, 1319-1330. [8.4]
Consul. p, C. (1967a), On the exact distributions of likelihcod ratio criteria for testing
independence of sets of variates under the null hypotllesis, Annals of Mathemati-
cal Swtistics, 38, 1160-1169. [9.3]
Consul, P. C. (1967b), On the exact distributions of the criterion W for testing
sphericity and in a p-variate normal distribution, Annals of Mathematical Statis-
tics, 38, 1170-1174. [10.7]
Courant. R, and D. Hilbert (1953), Methods of Mathematicc..l Physics, Interscience,
New York. [9.10]
Cox. D. R, and N. Wermuth (1996), Multivariate Dependencies, Chapman and Hall,
London. [15.1]
Cramer. H. (1946). Malhematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University, Prince-
ton. [2.6. 3.2, 3.4. 6.5. 7.21
Dahm. P. Fred. and Wayne A Fuller (1981), Generalized least squares estimation of
lh~ functional multivariate linear errors in variables mOdel, unpublished. [14.31
Daly. J. F. (1940), On the unbia<;ed character of likelihood-ratio tests for indepen-
dence in normal systems, Annals of Mat/zemalical SlalU'lies, 11, 1-32. [9.21
Darlington. R. B., S. L. Weinberg, and H. 1. Wa'lberg (1973), Canonical variate
analysis and related techniques, Review of Educational Research, 43, 433-454.
[12.2]
Das Gupta. Somesh (1965), Optimum classification rules for classification into two
multivdriate normal populations, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 1174-1184.
[6.6]
Das Gupta. S., T. W. Anderson, and G. S. Mudholkar (1964), Monotonicity of the
power functions of some tests of the multivariate linear hypothesis, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 35, 200-205. [8.10]
David, F. N. (1937), A note on unbiased limits for the correlation coefficient,
Biometrika. 29, 157-160. [4.2]
David. F. N. (1938), Tables of the Ordinates and Probability Integral of the Distribution of
the Correlation Coefficient in Small Samples, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
[4.2]
Davis. A. W. (1968). A system of linear differential equatiOns for the distribution of
Hotelling's generalized Tl, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 39, 815-832. [8.61
Davis. A. W. (1970a), Exact distributions of Hotelling's generalized T;, Biometrika,
57. 187-19I. [Preface, 8.61
DaviS, A. W. (1970b), Further applications of a differential equation for Hotelling's
generalized Tl, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 22, 77-87.
[Preface. 8.6]
Davis. A. W, (197\), Percentile approximations for a class of likelihood ratio criteria,
Biometrika, 58.349-356. [10.8, 10.9]
REFERENCES 695

Davis, A. W. (1972a), On the marginal distributions of the latent roots of the

multivariate beta matrix, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43, 1664-1670. [8.6]
Davis, A. W. (t972b), On the distributions of the latent roots and traces of certain
random matrices, Journal of IYJ.ultiuariate Analysis, 2, 189-200. [8.6]
Davis, A. W. (1980), Further tabulation of Hotelling's generalized T~, Communica-
tions in Statistics, B9, 321-336. [Preface, 8.6]
Davis, A. W., and], B. F. Field (1971), Tables of some multivariate test criteria,
Technical Report No. 32, Division of Mathematical Statistics, C.S.tR.O.,
Canberra, Australia. [10.8]
Davis, Harold T. (1933), Tables of the Higher Mathematical Functions, Vol. I, Principia
Press, Bloomington, Indiana. [8.5]
Davis, Harold T. (1935), Tables of the Higher Mathematical Functions, Vol. II, Principia
Press, Bloomington, Indiana. [8.51
Deemer, Walter L., and Ingram Olkin (1951), The Jacobians of certain matrix
transformations useful in multivariate analysis. Based on lectures of P. L. Hsu at
the University of North Carolina, 1947, Biometrika,38, 345-367. [13.2]
De Groot, Morris H. (1970), Optimal Statistical Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[3.4, 6.2, 6.7}
Dempster, A. P. (1972), Covariance selection, Biometrics, 28, 157-175. [15.5]
Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin (1977), Maximum likelihood from
incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society B, 39, 1-38. [14.3]
Diaconis, Persi, and Bradley E.fron (11)83), CompuLcr-intclll\ivc mcthods in statistics,
Scientific American, 248, 116-130. [4.3]
Eaton, M. L., and M. D. Perlman (1974), A monotonicity property of the power
functions of some invariant rests for MANOVA, Annals of Statistics, 2, 1012-1028.
[8.101
Edwards, D. (1995), Introduction to Graphical Modelling, Springer-Verlag, New York.
[15.1]
Efron, Bradley (J 982), The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resamplmg PlaT'S,
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. [4.21
Efron, Bradley, and Carl Morris (1977), Stein's paradox in statistics, Scientific 4merl-
can, 236, 119-127. [3.51
Elfving. G. (1947), A simple method of deducing certain distributions connected with
multivariat!! sampling, SkandinaviskAktuarietidskrift, 30, 56-74. [7.21
Fang, Kai-Tai, Samuel Kotz, and Kai-Wang Ng (1990), Symmetric Multivariate and
Related Distributions, Chapman and Hall, New York. [2.71
Fang, Kai-Tai, and Ya6-Ting Zhang (1990), Generalized Multivariate Analysis,
Springer-Verlag, New York. [2.7, 3.6, 10.11, 7.91
Ferguson, Thomas Shelburne (1967), Mathematical Statistics: A Decision Theoretic
Approach, Academic, New York. [3.4, 6.2,6.7]
Fisher, R. A. (1915), Fr~quency distribution of the values of the correlation coeffi-
cient in samples from an indefinitely large population, Biometriko., 10, 507-521.
[4.2, 7.2]
Fisher, R. A. (1921), On the "probable error" of a coefficient of correlation deduced
from a small sample, Metron, I, Part 4, 3-32. [4.21
696 REFERENCES

Fisher, R. A. (1924), The distribution of the panial correlation coefficient, Metron, 3,

329-332. [4.3)
Fisher, R. A (1928), The general sampling distribution of the multiple correlation
coefficient, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, 121, 654-673. [4.4]
Fisher, R. A. (1936), The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems,
Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179-188. [5.3, 6.5, 11.5]
Fisher, R. A (1939), The sampling distribution of some statistics obtained from
non-bnear equations, Annals of Eugenics, 9, 238-249. [13.2]
Fisher, R A. (1947a), The Design of Experiments (4th ed.), Oliver and Boyd,
Fdinturgh. [8.9]
Fisher, R. A. (1947b), The analysis of covaria'lce method for the relation between a
part and the whole, Biometrics, 3, 65-68. [3.P]
Fisher, R. A, anti f. Yateii (1942), Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and
Medical Research (2nd ed.), Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. [4.2]
Fog, David (1948), The geometrical method in the theory of sampling, Biometrika,35,
46-54. [7.2]
Foster, F. G. (1957), Upper percentage points of the generalized beta d:stribution, II,
Biometrika, 44, 441-453. [8.6]
Foster, F. G. (1958), Upper percentage points of the generalized beta distribution, III,
Biometrika, 45, 492-503. [8.6]
Foster, F. G., and D. H. Rees (1957), Upper percentage points ofthe generalized beta
distribution, I, Biometrika, 44, 237-247. [8.6]
Frets, G. P. (1921), Heredity of head form in man, Genetlca, 3, 193-384. [3.P)
Frisch, R. (1929), Correlation and scatter in statistical variables, Nordic Statistical
Journal, 8, 36-102. [7.5]
Frydenberg, M. (1990), The chain graph Markov property, Scandinavian Journal of
Statistics, 17, 333-353. [15.2)
Fujikoshi, Y. (1973), Monotonicity of the power functions of some tests in general
MANOVA models, Annals of Statistics, 1, 188-391. [8.6)
Fujikoshi, Y. (1974), The likelihood ratio tests for the dimensionality of regression
coefficients, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 4, 327-340. [12.4]
Fujikoshi, Y., and M. Kanazawa (1976), The ML classification statistic in covariate
discriminant analysis and its asymptotic expansions, Essays in Probability and
Statistics, 305-320. [6.6]
Fuller, Wayne A., Sastry, G. Pantula, and Yasuo Amemiya (1982), The covariance
matrix of estimators for the factor model, unpublished. [14.4]
Gabriel, K. R. (1969), Simultaneous test procedures-some theory of multiple com-
parisons, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40, 224-250. [8.7]
Gajjar, A. V. (1967), Limiting distributions of cenain transformations of multiple
correlation coefficients, Metron, 26, 189-193. [4.4)
Galton, Francis (1889), Natural Inheritance, MacMiUan, London. [1.2, 2.5]
Gauss, K. F. (1823), Theory of the Combination of Observations, G6ttingen. [1.2)
Giri, N. (1977), Multivariate Statistical Inference, Academic, New York. [7.2, 7.7]
Giri, N., and J. Kiefer (1964), Local and asymptotic minimax properties of multivari-
ate tests, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35, 21-35. [5.6)
REFERENCES 697

Giri, N., J. Kiefer, and C. Stein (963), Minimax character of Hotelling's T~ test in
the simplest case, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 1524-1535. [5.6]
Girshick, M. A. (1939), On the sampling theory of roOts of determinantal ~quations.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 203-224. [13.2]
Gieser, Leon Jay (1981), Estimation in a multivariate "errors in variables" regression
model: large sample results, Annals of Statistics, 9, 24-44. [12.7]
Glynn, W. J., and R. J. Muirhead (1978), Inference in canonical correlation analysis.
Journal of Multivariate Analysis. 8, 468-478. [12.4]
Golub, Gene H.. and Franklin T. Luk (1976), Singular value decomposition: applica-
tions and computations, unpublished. [12.3]
Golub, Gene H., and Charles F. Van Loan (1989), Matrix Computations end ~d').
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. [11.4, 12.3, A.5]
Grubbs, F. E. (1954), Tables of 1% and 5% probability levels of Hotclling'~ gcncral-
ized T2 stj:ltistics, Technical Note No. 926, Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. [8.6]
Gupta, Shanti S. (1963), Bibliography on the multivariate normal integrals and related
topics, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 829-838. [2.31
Gurland, John (1968), A relatively simple form of the distribution of the multiple
correlation coefficient, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 30. 276-283. [4.4]
Gurland, 1., and R. Milton (1970), Further consideration of the distributioll of th~
ffi4ltiple correlation coefficient, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 32.
381-394. [4.4]
Haavelmo, T. (1944), The probability approach in econometrics, Econometrica, 12.
Supplement, 1-118. [12.7]
Haff, L. R. (1980), Empirical Buyes estimation of the multivariate normal coyarianct.:;
matrix, Annals of Statistics, 8, 586-597. [7.8]
Halmos, P. R. (1950), Measure Theory, D. van Nostrand. New Ytlrk. [45. 13.31
Harris, Bernard, and Andrew P. Soms (1980). The use of the tetrachoric series for
evaluating multivariate pormal probabilities, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 10.
252-267. [2.3]
Hayakawa, Takesi (1967), (In the distribution of the maximum latent root of a
positive definite symme1ric random matrix, Annals of the Institute of Statistical
Mathematics, 19, 1-17. [8.6]
Heck. D. L (1960), Charts of some upper percentage pOints of the distribution of the
largest characteristic root, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31. 625-642. [8.6]
Hickman, W. Braddock (1953), The Volume of Corporate Bond Financillg Since 1900.
Princeton University. Princeton, 82-90. [10.7]
Hoel, Paul G. (1937), A significance test for component analysis, Annals of Mathemat-
ical Statistics, 8, 149-158. [7.5]
Hooker, R. H. (1907), The correlation of the weather and crops, Journal of the RO.ml
Statistical Society; 70,1-42. [4.2]
HoteUing, Harold (1931), The generalization of Student's ratio. Annals of Jialhemali-
cal Statistics, 2, 360-378. [5.1, S.P]
Hotelling, Harold (1933), Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into prindpal
components, Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417-441. 498-520. [1 U, 14.31
698 REFERENCES

Hotdling. Harold 1I935), The most predictable criterion, Journal of Educational

P~ycholog)". 26. l39-142. [11.2]

HoteHing. Harold (1936), Relations between two sets of variates, Biometrika, 28,
321-377. [12.1]
Hotelling. Harold (1947), Multivariate quality control, illustrated by the air testing of
sample bombsights. Techniques of Statistical Analysis (c. Eisenhart, M. Hastay,
and W. A. Wallis, I!d~'). McGraw-Hili, New York. 111-IX4. [R.6]
Hotelling. Harold (1951), A generalized T test and measure of multivariate disper-
sion. Proceedings of tile Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics
and Probability (jerzy Neyman. ed'), University of California, Los Angeles and
Berkeley. 23-41. [8.6. 10.7]
Hotdling. Harold (1953). New light on the correlation coefficient and its transforms
(with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 15, 193-232. [4.2]
HO\\t~. w. G. (1955). Some ColltriblltiollS to Factor Ana (ysis, U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission Report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
[14.2, 14.6]
Hsu. P. L. (1938). Notes on Hotelling's generalized T, Annals of k'athematical
Statistics. 9. 231-·243. [5.4]
Hsu. P. L. (1939a), On the distribution of the roots of certain determinantal equa-
tions. Anllals of Eugenics, 9, 250-25R. [13.2]
Hsu. P. L. (1939b), A new proof of the joint product moment distribution, Proceedings
of the Cambridge Philosophical SOcieT)', 35, 336-338. [7.2]
Hsu. P. L. (1945), On the power functions for the E 2-test and the T 2-test, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics. 16, 278-286. [5.6]
Hudson. M. (1974), Empirical Bayes estimation, Technical Report No. 58, NSF
contract GP 3071IX-2, Department of StatistiCl, Stanford University. [3.5]
Immer. F. R .. H. D. Hayes, and LeRoy Powers (1934), Statistical determination of
barky varil!tal adaptation, Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, 26,
403-407. [8.9]
Ingham, A. E. (1933), An integral which occurs in statistics, Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society. 29, 271-276. [7.2]
I to. K. ( 1956). Asymptotic formulae for the distribution of Hotelling's generalized T~
statistic. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 1091-1105. [8.6]
lto. K. (1960), Asymptotic formulae for the distribution of Hotelling's generalized TJ
statistic. II. Annals of Mathellwtical St({ti~tics. 31. 114X-1153. [x'6]
IZl!nman. A. 1. (1975), Reduced-rank regression for the multivariate linear model,
JOLlrnal of Multivariate Analysis,S. 248-264. [12.7]
lzenman. Alan Julian (1980), Assessing dimensil)nality in multivariate regression,
Ana(vsis of Variance. Handbook of Statistics. VoL 1 (P. R. Krishnaiah, ed.),
North-Holland. Amsterdam, 571-591. [3.P]
J ames, A. T. (1954), Normal multivariate analysis and the orthogonal group, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 25, 40-75. [7.2]
J ames. A. T. (1964), Distributions of matrix variates and latent roots derived from
normal samples, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35. 475-501. [8.6]
REFERENCES 699

James, W., and C. Stein (1961), Estimation with quadratic loss, Proceedings of the
Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (Jerzy
Neyman, ed.), Vol. I, 361-379. University of California, Berkeley. [3.5, 7.8]
Japanese Standards Association (1972). Statistical Tables and Fonnulas with Computer
Applications. [Preface]
Jennrich, Robert I.. and Dorothy T. Thayer (1973), A note on Lawley's formulas for
standard errors in maximum likelihood factor analysis, Psychometrika, 38,
571-580. [14.3]
Johansen, S. (1995), Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive
Models, Oxford University Press. [12.7]
Jolicoeur, Pierre, and J. E. Mosimann (1960), Size and shape variation in the painted
turtle, a principal component analysis, Growth, 24, 339-354. Also in Benchmark
Papers In Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (E. H. Bryant and W. R. Atchley,
eds.), 2 (1975),86-101. [1 LP]
Joreskog, K. G. (969) A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood
factor analysis, Psychometrika, 34, 183-202. [14.2]
Joreskog, K. G., and Arthur S. Goldberger (1972), Factor analysis by generalized least
squares, Psychometrika, 37, 243-260. [14.3]
Kaiser, Henry F. (1958), The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis,
Psychometrika, 23, 187-200. [14.5]
Kanazawa, M. (1979), The asymptotic cut-off point and comparison of error probabili-
ties in covariate discriminant analysis, Journal of the Japan Statistical Society, 9,
7-17. [6.6]
Kelley, T. L (1928), Crossroads in the Mind of Man, Stanford University, Stanford.
[4.P,9.P]
Kendall, M. G., and Alan Stuart (1973), The Advanced Theory of Statistics (3rd ed.),
VoL 2, Charles Griffin, London. [12.6]
Kennedy, William J., Jr., and James E. Gentle (1980), Statistical Computing, Marcel
Dekker, New York. [12.3]
Khatri, C. G. (t 963), Joint estimation of the parameters of multivariate normal
populations, Journal of Indian Statistical Association, I, 125-133. [7.2]
Khatri, C. G. (1966), A note on a large sample distribution of a transformed multiple
corrcl?tion coefficient, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 18,
375-380. [4.4]
Khatri, C. G. (1972), On the exact finite series distribution of the smallest or the
largest root of matrices in three situations, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 2,
201-207. [8.6]
Khatri, C. G., and K. C. Sreedharan Pillai (1966), On the moments of the trace of a
matriX and approximations to its non-central distribution, Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 37, 1312-1318. [8.6]
Khatri, C. G., and K. C. S. Pilla! (1968), On the non-central distributions of two test
criteria in multIvariate analysis of variance, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 39,
215-226. [8.6]
Khatri, C. G., and K. V. Ramachandran (1958), Certain multivariate distribution
problems, I (Wishart's distrlbution), Journal of the Maharaja Sayajairo, University
of Baroda, 7, 79-82. [7.2]
700 REFERENCES

Kiefer, 1. (1957), Invariance, minimax sequential estima tion, and continuous time
processes, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28, 573-601. [7.8]
Kiefer, J. (1966), Multivariate optimality results, Multivariate Analysis (Parachuyi R.
Krishnaiah, ed.), Academic, New York, 255-274. [7.8]
Kiefer, 1., and R. Schwartz (1965), Admissible Bayes character of T2_, R2_, and other
fully invariant tests for classical multivariate normal problems, Annals of Mathe-
matical Statistics, 36, 747-770. [5.P, 9.9, 10.10]
Klotz, Jerome, and Joseph Putter (1969), Maximnm likelihood estimation of the
multivariate covariance components for the balanced one-way layout. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 40, 1100-1105. [10.6]
Kolmogorov, A. (1950), Foundations of the Theory of Probability, Chelsea, New York.
[2.2]
Konishi, Sadanori (1978a), An approximation to the distribution of the sample
correia tion coefficien t, Biometrika, 65, 654-656. [4.2]
Konishi, Sadllnori (I 978b}, Asymptotic expansions for the distributions of statistics
based on a correlation matrix, Canadian Journal of Statistics, 6, 49-56. [4.2]
Konishi, Sadanori (1979), Asymptotic expansions for the distributions of functions of a
correlation matrix, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 9, 259-266. [4.2]
Koopmans, T. c., and Olav Rcicrs01 (950), The idcntification of structural character-
istics, Annals of Math(matical Statistics, 21, I oS-181. [14.2]
Korin, B. P. U968}, On the distribution of a statistic used for testing a covariance
matrix, Biometrika, 55, 171-178. [10.8]
Korin, B. P. (1969), On testing the equality of k covariance matrices, Biometrika, 56,
216-218. [10.5]
Kramer, K. H. (1963), Tables for constructing confidence limits on the multiple
correlation coefficient, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58,
1082-1085. [4.4]
Krishnaiah, P. R. (1978), Some recent developments on real multivariate distributions,
Development in Statistics (P. R Krishnaiah, ed.), Vol. 1, Academic, New York,
135-169. [8.6]
Krishnaiah, P. R. (1980), Computations of some multivariate distributions, Analysis of
Variance, Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 1 (P. R Krishnaiah, ed.), North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 745-971.
Krishnaiah, P. R., and T. C. Chang (l972), On the exact distributions of the traces of
S,CS, +S2}-1 and SIS2" Sankhya, A, 34,153-160. [8.6]
Krishnaiah, P. R, and F. J. Schuurmann (1974), On the evaluation of some distribu-
tions that arise in simultaneous tests for the equality of the latent roots of the
covariance matrix, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 4, 265-282. [10.7]
Kshirsagar, A. M. (1959), Bartlett decomposition and Wishart distribution, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 30, 239-241. [7.2]
Kudo, H .. (1955}, On minimax invariant estimates of the transformation parameter,
Natural Science Report, 6, 31-73, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan. [7.8]
Kunitomo, Naoto (J 980), Asymptotic expansions of the distributions of estimators in a
linear functional relationship and simultaneous equations, Journal of the Ameri-
can Statistical Association, 75, 693-700. [12.7]
REFERENCES 701

Lachenbruch, P. A., and M. R Mickey (1968), Estimation of error rates in discrimi-

nant analysis, Technometrics, 10, 1-11. [6.6]
Laplace, P. S. (1811), Memoire sur les integrales definies et leur application aux
probabilites, Memoires de l'Institut Imperial de France, Annee 1810, 279-347. [l.2]
Lauritzen, Steffen L (1996), Graphical Models, Clarendon Press, Oxford. [15.5]
Lauritzen, Steffen L, and "'I. Wermuth (1989), Graphical models for associations
between variables some of which are qualitative and some quantitative, Annals of
Statistics, 17,31-57. [15.2]
Lauter, Jurgen, Ekkehard Glimm, and Siegfried Kropf (1996a). New multivariate tests
for data with an inherent structure, Biometrics Journal, 38.5-23. {Correction: 40.
(1998), 1015.] [5.7]
Lauter, lUrgen, Ekkehard Glimm, and Siegfried Kropf (1996b), Multivariate tests
based on left-spherically distributed llnear scoreS, Annals of Statislics. 26.
1972-1988. [5.7]
Lallter, Jiirgen, Ekkehard Glimm, and Siegfried Kropf (J 996d. Exact stable multivari-
ate tests for applications in clinical re~earch. ASA Proceedings of the' Riophamza-
ceutical Section, 46-55. [5.7]
Lawley, D. N. (1938), A generalization of Fisher's z test, Biometrika, 30, 180-187.
[8.6]
Lawley, D. N. (1940), Thc c!;timalion of factor loadings hy thc mcthod of i1WXinlllln
likelihood, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Sec. A, 60, 64·-82. [14.3]
Lawley, D. N. (1941), Further investigations in factor estimation, Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Edinburgh, Sec. A, 61, 176-185. [14.4]
Lawley, D. N. (! 953), A modified method of estimation in factor analysis and some
large sample results, Uppsala Symposium 011 Psychological Factor Amt~vsil. 17"19
March 1953, Uppsala, Almqvist and Wiksell. 35-42. [14.3]
Lawley, D. N. (1958), Estimation in factor analysis under various initial assumptions.
British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 11, 1-12. [14.2, 14.6]
Lawley, D. N. (1959), Tests of significance in canonical analysis, Biometrika. -16.
59-66. [12.4]
Lawley, D. N. (1967), Some new results in maximum Iikelihoxl factor analysis.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Sec. A. 87.256-264. [14.3]
Lawley, D. N., and A. E. Maxwell (1971), Factor Analysis as a Statistical Method (211d
ed.), American Elsevier, New York. [14.3, 14.5]
Lee, Y. S. \1971a), Asymptotic formulae for the distribution of a multivariate test
statistic: power comparisons of certain multivariate tests. Biometrika. 58.647-651.
[8.6]
Lee, Y. S. (1971 b), Some results on the sampling distribution of the multiple
correlation coefficient, Journal of the Royal Stalistical Society B, 33. 117-'130. [4.4]
Lee, Y. S. (1972), Tables of upper percentage points of the multiple correlation
coefficient, Biometrika,59, 175-189. [4.4]
Lehmann, E L (1959), Testing Statistical Hypotheses, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[4.2, 5.6]
Lehmer, Emma (1944), Inverse tables of probabilities of error:- of the ~l'(md kind.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 15, 388-398. [5.4]
702 REFERENCES

Loeve. M. (1977). Probability Theory I (4th ed.), Springer~Verlag, New York. [2.2]
Loeve, M. (1978), Probability Theory /I (4th ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York. [2.2]
Madow. W. O. (1938), Contributions to the theory of multivariate statistical analysis,
Tratlsactiol/s of the American Mathematical Sociery, 44, 454-495. [7.2]
\1agnus. Jan R. (1988). Linear Strnctures, Charles Griffin and Co., London. [A.4]
Magnus, J. R, and H. Neudecker (1979), The commutation matrix: some properties
and applications, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 381-394. [3.6]
r-,'{ahalanobis, P. C (1930). On tests and measures of group divergence, Journal and
Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 26, 541-588. [3.3]
Mahalanobis. P. C, R C. Bose, and S. N. Roy (1937), Normalisation of statistical
variates and the use of rectangular co-ordinates in the theory of sampling
distributions, Sankhya, 3, 1-40. [7.2]
Mallows, C L. (1961), Latent vectors of random symmetric matrices, Biometrika,48,
133-149. [11.6]
Mardia, K. V. (1970), Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applica-
tions, Biometrika, 57, 519-530. [3.6]
Mariano, Roberto S., and Takamitsu Sawa (1972), The exact finite-sample distribu-
tion of the limited-information maximum likelihood estimator in the case of two
included endogenous variables, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67,
159-163. [12.7]
Maronna, R A. (1976), Robust M-estimators of multivariate location and scatter,
Annals of Statistics, 4.51-67. [3.6]
Marshall, A. W., and L Olkin (1979), Inequaliries: Theo,y of Majorization and Its
Applications, Academic, New York. [8.10]
Mathai, A. M. (1971), On the distribution of the likelihood ratio criterion for testing
linear hypotheses on regression coefficients, Annals of the Institute of Statistical
Mathematics. 23, 181-197. [8,4]
Mathai, A. M., and R S. Katiyar (1979), Exact percentage points for testing indepen~
dence, Biometrika, 66, 353-356. 19.3]
Mathai. A. M .. and P. N. Rathie (1980). Tile exact non-null distribution for testing
equality of covariance matrices, Sankhya A, 42, 78-87. [10.4]
Mathai. A. M .. and R. K. Saxena (1973), Generalized Hypergeometric Functions with
Applications in Statistics and Physical Sciences, Lecture Notes No. 348, Springer~
Verlag, New York. [9.3]
Mauchly. J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n~variate distribu~
tion. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 204-209. [10.7]
Mauldon, J. O. (1955), Pivotal quantities for Wishmt's and related distributions, and a
paradox in fiducial theory, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 17, 79-85.
[7.2]
McDonald. Roderick P. (2002), What can We learn from path equations: identifiabil~
ity, constraints, equivalence, Psychmnetrika, 67, 225-249. [15.1]
McLachlan, G. J. (J 973), An asymptotic expansion of the expectation of the estimated
error ratc in discriminant analysis, Australian Journal of Statistics, 15, 210-214.
[6.6]
REFERENCES 703

M;::Lachlan, O. l. (I 974a), An asymptotic unbiased technique for (!$timating the error

rates in discriminant analysis. Biometrics. 30. 239-249. [6.6]
McLachlan. G. 1 (I974b). Estimation of the crrots of miscltlssificution on the
criterion of asymptotic mean square error, Technometrics, 16, 255-260. [6.6]
Mclachlan, G. J. (l974c), The asymptotic distributions of the conditional error rate
and risk in discriminant analysis, Biometrika, 61, 131-135. [6.6]
McLachlan, G. J. (1977), Constrained sample discrimination with the studentized
classification statistic W, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, A6,
575-583 [6.6]
Memon, A. Z., and M. Okamoto (1971), Asymptotic expansion of the distribution of
The Z statistic in discriminant analysis, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 1,
294-307. [6.6]
Mijares, T. A. (1964), Percentage Points of the Sum vl s ) of s Roots (s = 1- 50), The
Statistical Center, University of the Philippines, Manila. [8.6]
Mikhail, N. N. (1965), A comparison of tests of the WHks-Lawley hypothesis in
multivariate analysis, Biometrika, 52, 149-156. [8.6]
Mood, A. M. (1951), On the distribution of the characteristic roots of normal
second-moment matrices, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 266-273. [13.2]
Morris, Blair, and Ingram Olkin (1964), Some estimation and testing problems for
factor analysis models, unpublished. [10.6]
Mudholkar, G. S. (1966), On confidence bounds associated with multivariate analysis
of variance and non~independence between two sets of varia tes, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 37, 1736-1746. [8.7]
Mudholkar, Govind S., and Madhusu(lan C. Trivedi (1980), A normal approximation
for the distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic in multivariate analysis of
variance, Biometrika, 67,485-488. [8.5]
Mudholkar, Govind S., and Madhusudan C. Trivedi (1981), A normal approximation
for the multivariate likelihood ratio statistics, Statistical Distributions in Scientific
Work (c. Taillie et al., eds.), Vol. 5, 219-230, D. Reidel PUblishing. [8.5]
Muirhead, R. J. (1970), Asymptotic distributions of some multivariate tests, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 41, 1002-1010. [8.6]
Muirhead, R. J. (1980), The eHects of elliptical distributions on some standard
procedures involving correlation coefficients: a review, Multivariate Statistical
Analysis (R. P. Gupta, ed.), 143-159. [4.5]
Muirhead, Robb J. (1982), Aspects of Multivariate Statistical Theory, John Wiley and
Sons, New York. [2.7, 3.6, 7.7]
Muirhead, R. J., and C. M. Waternaux (1980), Asymptotic distributions in canonical
correlation analysis and other multivariate procedures for nonnormal popula-
tions, Biometrika, 67, 31-43. [4.5]
Nagao, Hisao (1973a), On som€': test criteria for covariance matrix, Annals of Stutbtics,
I, 700-709. [9.5, 10.2, 10.7, 10.8]
Nagao, Hisao (1973b), Asymptotic expansions of the distributions of Bartlett's test and
sphericity test under the local allernatives, Annals of the Institute of Statistical
Mathematics, 25, 407-422. [10.5, 10.6]
Nagao, Hisao (1973c), Non nul I distributions of two test criteria for inGepend~nce
under local alternatives, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 3, 435-444. [9.4]
704 REFERENCES

Nagarsenker, B. N., and K. C. S. Pillai (1972), The Distribution of the Sphericity Test
Criterion, ARL 72-0154, Aerospace Research Laboratories. [Preface]
Nagarsenker, B. N., and K. C. S. Pillai (1973a), The distribution of the sphericity test
criterion, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 3, 226-235. [10.7]
Nagarsenker, B. N., and K. C. S. Piliai (1973b), Distribution of the likelihood ratio
criterion for testing a hypothesis specifying a covariance matrix, Biometrika, 60,
359-364. [10.8]
Nagarsenker, B. N., and K. C. S. Pillai (1974), Distribution of the likelihood ratio
criterion for testing l: = l:o, f.l. = f.l.o, Journal of Multivatit te Analysis, 4, 114-122.
[10.9]
Nanda, D. N. (1948), Distribution of a root of a determinantal equation, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 19, 47-57. [8.6]
Nanda, D. N. (1950), Distribution of the sum of roots of a determinantal equation
under a certain condition, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 432-439. [8.6]
Nanda, D. N. (1951), Probability distribution tables of the larger root of a determinan-
tal equation with two roots, JOLln/al of the Ituliafl Society of AgriClll.·ural Statistics,
3, 175-177. [8.6]
Narain, R. D. (1948), A new approach to samplirg distributions of the multivariate
normal theory, I, iuurtlul uj'tlte IttdiufI Suciety of Agriculwt'al Statistics, 1, 59-69.
[7.2]
Nanin, R. D. (1950), On the completely unbiased character of tests of independence
in multivariate normal systems, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 293-298.
[9.2]
National Bureau of Standards, United States (1959), Tables of the Bivariate Nonnal
Distribution Function and Related Functions, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. [2.3]
Neveu, Jacques (1965), Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability,
Holden-Day, San Francisco. [2.2]
Ogawa, 1. (1953), On the sampling distributions of classical statistics in multivariate
analysis, Osaka Mathematics Journal, 5, 13-52. [7.2]
Okamoto, Masashi (1963), An asymptotic expansion for the distribution of the linear
discriminant function, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 1286-1301. (Correc-
tion, 39 (1968), 1358-1359.) [6.6]
Okamoto, Masashi (1973), Distinctness of the eigenvalues of a quadratic form in a
multivariate sample, Annals of Statistics, 1, 763-765. [13.2]
Olkin, Ingram, and S. N. Roy (1954), On multivariate distribution theory, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 25, 329-339. [7.2]
Olson, C. L (1974), Comparative robustness of six tests in multivariate analysis of
variance, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 894-908. [8:6]
Pearl, Judea (2000), Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge Univer~
sity Press, Cambridge. [15.1]
Pearson, E. S., and H. O. Hartley (1972), Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, Vol. II,
Cambridge (England), Published for the Biometrika Trustees at the University
Press. [Preface, 8.4]
Pearson, E. S., and S. S. Wilks (1933), Methods of statistic:!I analysis appropriate for k
samples of two variables, Biometrika, 25, 353-378. [10.5]
REFERENCES 70S

Pearson, K. (1896), Mathematical contributions to the theory o( evolution---llL

Regression, heredity and panmixia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series A, 187, 253-318, [2.5, 3.2]
Pearson, K. (1900), On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the
probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be
reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling, Philosophical Maga-
zine, 50 (fifth series), 157-175. [3.3]
Pearson, K. (1901), On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space,
Philosophical Magazine, 2 (sixth series), 559-572. [11.2]
Pearson, K. (1930), Tables for Statisticians and Biometricians, Part I (3rd ed'), Cam-
bridge University, Cambridge. [2.3]
Pearson, K. (1931), Tables for Statisticians and Biometricians. Part 11, Cambridge
University, Cambridge. [2.3, 6.8]
Perlman, M. D. (1980), Unbiasedness of the likelihood ratio tests for equality of
several covariance matrices and equality of several multivariate normnl popula-
tions, Annals of StatL..tlcs, 8, 247-263. [10.2, 10.3]
Perlman, M. D .• and 1. Olkin (1980), Unbiasedness of invariant te:::ts for MANO VA
and other multivariate problem!;, Annals of Statistics, 8, D26-1 ~4L [8.10]
Phillips, P. C. B. (1980), The exact uistribution of instrumental variable estimators in
an equation containing n + 1 endogenous variables, Economeltica, 48, g61-g7g.
[12.7]
Phillips, P. C. B. (1982), A new approach to ~I11all sample theory. unpublished, Cowles
Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University. [12.7]
Pillai, K. C. s. (1954), On some distribution problems in multivariate analysis, Mimeo
Series No. 54. Institute of Statistics. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. [8.6]
PiUai, K. C. s. (1955), Some new test criteria in multivariate analysis, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 26, 117-121. [8.6]
PUlai, K. C. s. (1956), On the distribution of the largest or the smalle~t root of a
matrix in multivariate analysis, Biometrika, 43, 122-127. [8.6]
PilIal, K. C. S. (1960), Stud/aical Tables for Te...l.'i of MultiJl{lriatf HYPOlhe.w.'.l. Statistical
Center, University of the Philippines. Manila. [8.6]
PilIai, K. C. s. (1964), On the moments of elementary symmetric functions of the roots
of two matrices, Annals of Mathematical Slatistics, 35. 1704-1712. [g.6]
PilIai, K. C. S. (1965), Oll the distribution of the largest characteristic root of a matrix
in multivariate analysis, Biometrika, 52,405-412. [8.6]
PiHai, K. C. s. (1967), Upper percentage points of the largest root of a matrix in
multivariate analYSIS, Biometroka, 54, 189-194. [8.6]
PilIai, K. C. S., and A. K. Gupta (1969), On the exact distribution of Wilks' criterion.
Biomelrika, 56, 109-118. [8.4]
PilIai, K. C. S., and Y. S. Hsu (1979), Exact robustness studies of the test of
independence based 011 four multivariate criteria and their distrihution problems
nnder viOlations, Ann lis of Ihe Institute of Statistical Marhematics. 31. Part A.
85~101. [8.6]
PiIlai, K. C. S., and K. Jayachandran (1967), Power comparisons of tests of two
mUltivariate hypotheses based on four criteria, Biomelrika. 5~. 19:'- ~ 10. [R.6]
706 REFERENCES

PillaL K. C. S.. and K. Jayachandran (1970), On the exact distri"'ution of Pillai's v(s)
~rit~rioll. Joun){// of Ille American SrariSlicaI Association, 65, 447-454. [8.6]
Pillai. K. C. S.. and T. A. Mijares (t 959), On the moments of the trace of a matrix and
approximatioru; to its distribution, Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 30,
11~5-1140. [8.6J
Pillai. K. C. S., and B. N. Nagarsenkcr (1971), On the distribution of the sphericity
tesl criterion in c1as~ical and complex normal populations having unknown
covariance matrices. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42, 764-767. [10.7]
Pill ai, K. C. S .. and P. Samson, Jr. (1959), On Hotelling's generalization of T2,
Biomerrika. -1.6. 160-168. [8.6]
PillaL K. C. S.. and T. Sugiyama (1969), Non-central distributions of the largest latent
roots of three matrices in multivariate analysis. Annals of the Institute of Statistical
Mathemal;cs, 21, 321-327. [8.6]
PillaL K. C. S., and D. L Young (1971), On the exaet distribution of Hotelling's
generalized T(f, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 1, 9(}-107. [8.6]
Plana, G. A. A. (1813), Memoire sur divers problemes de probabilite, Memoires de
I'Academidmperiale de Turin, pourles Anllees 1811-1812, 20, 355-408. [1.2]
polya. G. 1I949)' Remarks on computing the probability integral in one and two
dimensions, Pro~eedfng:; of the Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and
Probdbflity U. Neyman, ed.). 63-7!t [2.P]
Rao. C. R. I. I 948a), The utilization of multiple mCl:lsurenlents in problems of biologi-
cal classification, Journal of the Royal Sultislical Society B, 10, 159-193. [6.9]
Rill). C R. (1948b)' Te~ts of Significance in multivariate analysis. Biomerrika, 35,
58-79. [5.3]
Rao. C. Radhakrishna (1951), An asymptotic expansion of the distribution of Wilks's
criterion. Bulletin of the International Stat{sticallnsritute, 33, Part 2, 177-180. [8.5]
Rao. C. R. (1952). Advanced Sratistical Melhods in Biometric Research, John Wiley &
Sons. New York. [12.5]
Rao. C. R. (1973). Linear Sraristical Inference and Its Applications (2nd ed.), John
Wiley & Sons. New York. [4.2]
Rasch. G. (948), A functional equation for Wishart's distribution, Annals of Mathe-
marical Sraristics, 19, 262-266. [7.2]
Reiers~l, Olav (1950), On the identifiability of parameters in Thurstone's multiple
factor aZlalysis. Psychometrika, 15, 121-149. [14.2]
Reinsel, G. C .. and R. P. Velu (1998), Multivariale Reduced-rank Regression, Springer,
New York. [12.7]
Rkhardson. D. H. (1968), The exact distribution of a structural coefficient estimator,
Joun/al of lite American Slalislical Associarion, 63, 1214-1226. [12.7]
Rothenberg. Thomas J. (1977), Edgeworth expansions for multivariate test statistics,
IP-~55, Center for Research in Management Science, University of California,
Berke ley. [8.6]
Roy. S. N. (1939). p-statistics or some generalisations in analysis of variance appropri-
ate to multivariate problems, Sankhya, 4, 381-396. [13.2]
Roy. S. N. (1945). The individual sampling distribution of the maximum, the minimum
and any intermediate of the p-::;tatistics on the null-hypothesis, Sankhya, 7,
133-158, [8.6]
REFERENCES 707

Roy, S. N. (1953), On a heuristic method of test construction and its use in

multivariate analysis, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24, 220-238. [8.6, 10.6]
Roy, S. N. (1957), Some Aspects of Multivariate Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New
York. [8.6, 10.6, 10.8]
Ruben, Harold (1966), Some new :esults on the distribution of the sample correlation
coefficient, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 28,513-525. [4.2]
Rubin, Donald B., and Dorothy T. Thayer (1982), EM algorithms for ML factor
analysis, Psychometrika, 47, 69-76. [14.3]
Ryan, D. A. J., J. J. Hubert, E. M. Carter, J. B. Sprague, and J. Parrot (1992), A
reduced-rank multivariate regression approach to joint toxicity experiments,
Biometrics, 48, 155-162. [12.7]
Salaevskii, 0. V. (1968), The minimax character of Hotelling's T2 test (Rolssian),
Doldady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 180; 1048-1050. [5.6]
SalaevskIl, (Shalaevskii), O. V. (1971), Minimax character of Hotelling's T2 test. I.
Investigations in Classical Problems of Probability Theory and Mathematical Statis-
tics, V. M. Kalinin and O. V. Shalaevskii (Seminar in Mathematics, V. 1. Steklov
Institute, Leningrad, Vol. 13), Consultants Bureau, New York. [5.6]
Sargan, J. D., and W. M. Mikhail (1971), A general approximation to the distribulion
of instrumental variables estimates, Econometrica, 39, 131-169. [12.7]
Sawa, Takamitsu (1969), The exact sampling distribution of ordinary least squues and
two-~tage lea~t squures estimators, Jonmal of tlte American StatL~/lcal Association,
64, 923-937. [12.7]
Schatzoff, M. (1966a), Exact distributions of Wilks's likelihood ratio criterion,
Biometrika, 53, 347-358. [8.4]
Schatzoff, M. (1966b), Sensitivity comparisons among tests of the general linear
hypothesis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61, 415-435. [8.6]
Scheffe, Henry (1942), On the ratio of the variances of two normal populations,
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 13, 371-388. [10.2]
Scheffe, Henry (1943). On solutions of the Behrens-Fisher problem, based on the
t-distribution, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 14, 35-44. [55]
Schmidli, H. (1996), Reduced-rank Regression, Physica, Berlin. [12.7]
Schuurmann, F. J., p, R. Krishnaiah, and A. K. Chattopadhyay (1975), Exact percent-
age points of the distribution of the trace of a multivariate beta matrix, Journal of
Statistical Computation and Simulation, 3, 331-343, [8.6]
Schuurmann, F. J" and V. B. Waikar (1973), Tables for the power function of Roy's
two-sided test for testing hypothesis I = I in the bivariate case, Communications
in Statistics, 1,271-280. [10.8]
Schuurmann, F. J., V. B. Waikar, and P. R. Krishnaiah (1975), Percentage points of
the joint distribution of the extreme roots of the random matrix S1(S1 + S2)-1,
Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 2, 17-38. [10.6]
Schwartz, R (1967), Admissible tests in multivariate analysis of variance, Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 38, 698-710. [8.10]
Serfling, Robert J. (1980), Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics, John
Wiley & Sons, New York. [4.2]
Simaika, 1. B. (1941), On an optimum property of two important statistical tests,
Biometrika, 32, 70-80. [5.6]
708 ltEFERENCES

Siotani, Minoru (1980), Asymptotic approximations to the conditional distributions of

the classification statistic Z and its studentized form Z*, Tamkang Journal of
Mathematics, 11, 19-32. [6.6]
Siotani, M., and R. H. Wang (1975), Further expansLon formulae for error rates and
comparison of the W- and the Z-procedures in discriminant analysis, Technical
Report No. 33, Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas. [6.6]
Siotani, M., and R. H. Wang (1977), Asymptotic Expansions for Error Rates and
Comparison of the W-Procedure and the Z-Procedure in Discriminant Analysis,
Multivariate Analysis W, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 523-545. [6.6]
Sitgreaves, Rosedith (1952), On the distribution of two random matrices used in
classification procedures, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 263-270. [6.5]
Solari, M. E. (1969), The "maximum likelihood solution" of the problem of estimating
a linear functional relationship, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 31,
372-375. [14.4]
Spearman, Charles (1904), "General-intelligence," objectively determined and mea-
sured, American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293. [14.2]
Speed, T. P., and H. Kiiveri (1986), Gaussian Markov distributions over finite graphs,
Annals of Statistics, 14, 138-150. [15.5]
Srivastava, M. S., and C. G. Khatri (1979), An Introduction to Multivariate Statistics,
North-Holland, New York. [10.9, 13.P]
Stein, C. (1956a), The admissibility of Hotelling's T 2-test, Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 27, 616-623. [5.6]
Stein, C. (1956b). Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate
normal distribution, Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical
and Statistical Probability (Jerzy Neyman, ed.), Vol. I, 197-206, University of
California, Berkeley. [3.5]
Stein, C. (l974), Estimation of the parameters of a multivariate normal distribution. I.
Estimation of the means, Technical Report No. 63, NSF Contract GP :10711X-2,
Department of Statistb, Stanford University. [3.5]
Stoica, P., and M. Viberg (1996), Maximum likelihood parameter and rank estimation
in reduced-rank multivariate linear regressions, IEEE Transaction Signal Process-
ing, 44, 3069-3078. [12.7]
Student (W. S. Gosset) (1908), The probable error of a mean, Biometrika, 6, 1-25.
[3.2]
Styan, George P. H. (1990), The Collected Papers ofT. W. Anderson: 1943-1985, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. [Preface]
Subrahmaniam, Kocherlota, and Kathleen Subrahmaniam (l973), Multivariate Analy-
sis: A Selected and Abstracted Bibliography, 1957-1972, Marcel Dekker, New York.
[Preface]
Sugiura, Nariaki, and Hisao Nagao (l968). Unbiased ness of some test criteria for the
equality of one or two covariance matrices, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 39,
1686-1692. [10.8]
Sugiyama, T. (1967), Distribution of the largest latent root and the smallest latent
root of the generalized B statistic and F statistic in muJtivariate analysis, Annals
of Mathematical Statistics, 38, 1152-1159. [8.6]
REFERENCES 709

Sugiyama, T" and K Fukutomi (1966), On the di~tribution of the extreme characteris-
tic roots of the matrices in mUltivariate analysis, Repons of S/(I/i~'lie(l1 Applielllion
Research, Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers, 13, [",0]
Sverdrup, Erling (1947), Der'Lvation of the Wi!lhart dbmihution of the )iccond nrder
sample moments by straightforward integration of a multiple integml. Skandi-
naviskAktuarietidskrift,30, 151-166, [7,2]
Tang, p, Co (1938), The power function of the analysis of variance tests with table~
and illustrations of their use, Statistical Resecrch Memoirs, 2, 126-157, [5.4]
Theil, H. (assisted by 1. S, Cramer, H. Moerman, and A, Russchen) (1961), Economic
Forecasts and Policy, (2nd rev, ed,), North-Holland, Amsterdam, Contributions to
Economic Analysis No, XV (first published 1958), [12,8]
Thomson, Godfrey H. (193' ,), HoteHing's method modified to give Spearman's" g:,
Journal of Educatior.al 1 sychology, 25, 366-374, [14.3]
Thomson, Godfrey H. (1951), The Factorial Analysis of Humall Ability (5th ed.).
University of London, London, [14,7]
Thurstone, L L (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, University of Chicago. Chicago.
[14,2, 14.5]
Tsay" R. S" and G, Co Tiao (1985), Use of canonical analy:-i:- in tim.: :-.:rics model
identifica tion, Biometrika, 72, 299-315, [12,7]
Tukey, J. W, (1949), Dyadic anova, an analysis of variance for vecton;, Humall Biology,
21, 65-110, [8,9]
Tyler, David E. (1981), Asymptotic inference for eigenvectors, Allnals of S/roislies, 9,
725-745, [11.7]
Tyler, David E. (1982), Radial estimates and the test for sphericity, Bio.'1It'fIiJ..ll, 69,
429-436, [3,6]
Tyler, David E. (1983a); Robustness and efficiency properties of scatter matrices,
Biometrika, 70, 411-420, [3,6]
Tyler, David E. (1983b), The asymptotic distribution of principal component roots
under local alternatives to multiple roots, Annals of Statistics, 11. 1232-114::'.
[11,7]
Tyler, David E. (1987), A distribution free M-estimator of multivariate )icatter, AIIIWI,I
of Statistics, 15, 234-251. [3,6]
Velu, R. p" G, Co Reinsel, and D, W, Wichern (1986), Reduced rank models for
mUltiple time series, Biometrika, 73, 105-118, [12,7]
von Mises, R. (1945), On the classification of observation data into distinct grouP);.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 16, 68-73. [6.8]
von Neumann, 1. (1937), Some matrix-inequalities and metrization of matric-space.
Tomsk University Review, 1 286-300. Reprinted in JolIlI VOII Nel/mall Collected
Works (A. H. Taub, ed.), 4 (1962), Pergamon. New York. 205-21lJ. [AA]
Wald, A. (1943), Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when
the number of observations is large, TransaCliolZS of l/ze American MalhemaIieal
Society, 54, 426-482, [4.2]
Wald, A. (1944), On a statistical problem arising in the classification \)( an incli\'jdu',\1
into one of two groups, Annals of Malhemalical Slalislics. 15. 145-162. [6.4. 6.5]
Wald, A. (1950), Slatistical Decision Funclions, John Wiley & Sons, New York. [6.2.
6.7, 8.10]
710 REFERENCES

\Vald, A., and R. Brookner (1941), On the distribution of Wilks' statistic for testing
the independence of several groups of variates, Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
12. 137-152. [8A, 9.3] .
Walker, Helen M. (1931), Studies in the History of Statistical Method, Williams and
Wilkins, Baltimore. [1.1]
Welch, P. D., and R. S. Wimpress (1961), Two multivariate statistical c >mputer
programs and their application to the vowel recognition problem, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 33, 426-434. [6.10]
Wermuth. N. (1980), Linear recursive equations, covariance selection and path
analysis, Journal oJ' the American Statistical Association, 75, 963-972. [15.5]
Whittaker, E. T., and G. N. Watson (1943), A Course of Modem Analysis, Cambridge
University, Cambridge. [8.5]
Whittaker. Joe (1990), Graphical Models in Applied Multivariate Statistics, John Wiley
& Sons, I nt' .. Chichester. [15.1]
Wijsman. Robert A. (1979), Constructing all smallest simultaneous confidence sets in
a given class. with applications to MANOVA, Amlals of Statistics, 7. 1003-1018.
[8.7]
Wijsman, Robert A. (1980). Smallest simUltaneous confidence sets with appliclltions
in multivariate analysis. Multivariate Analysis. V, 483-498. [8.7]
Wilkinson, Jame~ Hardy (1965), The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem, Clarendon, Oxford.
[ 11.4]
Wilkinson, 1. H., and C. Reinsch (1971), Linear Algebra, Springer-Verlag, New York.
[ 11.4]
Wilks. S. S. (932). Certain generalizations in the' analysis of variance, Biometrika,24.
471-494. [7.5, 8.3, lOA]
Wilh, S. S. (lY34), Moment-generating opcr<lIorl> for uctcrminnnts of product mo-
ments in samples from a normal syqtcm, Annah; of Mathmwtics, 35, 312-340.
[8.3]
Wilks, S. S. (1935), On the independence of k sets of normally distributed statistical
variahle);, Econometrica, 3, 309-326. [8.4, 9.3, 9.P]
Wishart, John (1928), The generalised product moment distribution in samples from a
normal multivariate population, Biometrika, 20A. 32-52. [7.2]
Wishart, John (1948), Proofs of the distribution law of the second order moment
statistics, Biometrika, 35, 55-57. [7.2]
Wishart. John. and MI S. Bartlett (1933), The generalised product moment distribU-
tion in a normal system, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 29,
260-270. [7.:2]
Wold, H. D. A. (1954), Causality and econometrics, Econom..rrica 22, 162-177. [15.11
Wold, H. D. A. (1960), A generalization of casual chain models, Econometrica, 28,
443-463. [15.1]
Woltz, W. G., W. A. Reid, and W. E. Colwell (1948), Sugar and nicotine in cured
bright tobacco as related to mineral element composition, Proceedings of the Soil
Sciences Society of America, 13, 385-387. [8.P]
Wright, Sewall (1921), Correlation and causation, Journal of Aglicultural Research, 20,
557--585. [15.1]
REFERENCES 711

Wright, Sewall (1934), The method of path coefficients, Annals of Mathematical

Statistics, 5, 161-215. [15.1]
Yamauti, Ziro (1977), Concise Statistical Tables, Japanese Standards Association.
[Preface]
Yates, F., and W. G. Cochran (1938), The analysis of groups of experiments, Journal
of Agricultural Science, 28,556. [8.9]
Yule, G. U. (1897a), On the Significance of Bravais' formulae for regression & c., in
the case of skew correlation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 60,
477-489. [2.5]
Yule, G. U. (1897b), On the theory of correlation, Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 60, 812-854. [2.5]
Zehna, p, W, (1966), Invariance of maximum likelihood estimators, Annals of Mathe~
matical Statistics, 37, 744. [3.2]
J
t
 Index

Absol utely c· ,n!inuous distribution, 8 Best linear predictor. 37. -l97

Additivity of Wishart matrices, 259 lind predictand, -l97
Admissible, definition of, 88, 210, 235 See also Canonical correlations and variate$
Admissible proc~dures, 235 Best linear unbiased estimator. 298
Admissible test, definition of, 193 Beta distribution. ]77
Stein's theorem for, 194 Bhallacharya's estimator of the mean, 99
Almost invariant test, 192 Bivariate normal denSity. 21, 35
Analysis of variance, random effects model, distribution. 21. 35
429 computation of. 23
likelihood ratio test of, 431 Bootstrap method. 135
See also Multivariate analysis of variance
Anderson, Edgar, Iris data of. 111 ~17
A pmltcriori dcn!lity, IN Canonical anHlysi\ of r"~rCSSi\lll clldficicnh,
of IL. Xl) 50X
of IL and E, 274 :lamplc.510
of IL, given i and S,275 Canonical correlation.<; ilnd variate~. -l87. -ll);i
of E, 273 asymptotic dislrii1ution of sample
k)'mptlltic distribution or ,! rundioll. IX~ currcl:!Iill!1:'. 5115
Asymptotic expansions of di!ltribution); of compUlation of. ;'iO]
likelihood ratio criteria, 321 distrihution of sam pic. 545
of gamma function, 318 invariance of. 496
maximum likelihood estimators of, 501
Barley yields in two years, 349 sample. 500
Bartlett decomposition, 257 testing number of nonzero correlations. 50-l
Bartlett-N anda-Pillai trace criterion, see uSe in testing hypotheses of rank of
Unear hypothesis covariance matrix. 504
Bayes estimator of covariance matrix, 273 Causal chain. 605
Bayes estimator of mean vector, 90 Central limit theorem. multivariate. 86
Bayes procedure, 89 Characteristic function. 41
extended, 90 continuity theorem for. -l5
Bayes risk, 89 inversion of. 45
Bernoulli polynomials, 318 of the multivariate normal di:;tribution. -l:-
Best estimator oi covariance mntrix CllflntctHif;tic mots and vectors. n~ 1. 6;'~
invariant with respect to triangular lincHr asym(llll!ic di:iIrill!!Iilll!:. (If. 5-l5. 55')
transfonnations, 279, 281 distribution of roots of a symmctric matrix.
proportional to sample covariance matrix. 542
277 di\lrillulioll (If !'\lob Ilf Wj,harl matrix. :'i-lll

713
714 INDEX

Characteristic roots and vector (Continued) Cochran's theorem, 262

of Wishart matrix in the metric of another, Coefficient of alienation, 400
S29 Complete class of procedures, 88
asymptotic distribution of, SSO essentially. 88
distribution of, 536 minimal,88
See also Principal components Completeness, defillition of, 84
Chi-squared distribution, 286 of sample mean lind covariance matrix,
noncentral, 82 84,85
Cholesky decomposition, 631 Complex normal distribution, 64
Oassification into normal populations characteristic function of, 65
Bayes linear transforms tion in, 65
Into One of several, 236 maximum likelihood estimators for, 112
into one of two, 204 Complex Wishart distribution, 287
discriminant function, 218 Components of variance, 429
sample, 220 Concentration ellipsoid, 58, 85
example, 240 Conditional density, 12
invariance of procedures, 226 normal,34
likelihood criterion for, 224 Conditional probability. 12
unequal covariance matrices, 242 Conjugate family of distn'butions, 272
linear, for unequal covariance matrices, 243 Consistency. definition of, 86
admissible, 246 Contours of constant density, 22
maximum likelihood rule, 226 Correlation coefficient
minimax canonical, see Canonical correlations and
one of several, 238 variates
one of two, 218 confidence interval for, 128
one of several, 237 by use of Fisher's z, 135
one of 1:\\'0,216 distribution of sample, asymptotic, 133
W-statistic, 219 bootstrap method for, 135
asymptotic distribution of, 222 tabUlation of. 126
asymptotic expansion of misclassification when population is not zero, 125
probabilities, 227 when population is zero, 121
Z-statistic, 226 distribution of set of sample 272
asymptotic expansion of misCiassification Fisher's Z, 134
probabilities.. 231 geometric interpretation of sample, 72
See also Classification procedures invariance of popUlation, 21
Classification procedures invariance of sample, 111
admissible, 210, 235 likelihood ratio test, 130
Into several po pula' ions, 236 maximum likelihood estimator of, 71
into two populations, 214 as measure of association, 22
a priori probabilities, 209 moments of, 166
Bayes, 89, 210 monotone likelihood ratio of, 164
and admissible, 214,236 multiple, see Multiple correlation coefficient
into several populations, 234 partial, see Partial correlation coefficient
into two populations. 216 in the population (Simple, Pearson,
complete class of, 211, 235 product-moment, total), 20
essentially, 211 sample (Pearson), 71, 116
minimal, 211 test of equality of two, 135
costs of misclassification, definition of, 208 test of hypothesis about, 126
expected loss from miscIassiflcation. 210 by Fisher's z, 134
minimax, 211 pOwer of, 128
for two populations, 215 test that it is zero, 121
probability of misclassiflcation, 210, 227 Cosine of angIe between two vectors, 72, See
See also Classification into normal also Correlation coefficient
populations Covariance. 17
INDEX 715

Covariance matrix, 17 Distance between two populations, 80

asymptotjc distribution of sample, 86 Distribution, see Canonical correlations;
Bayes estimator of, 273 Characteristic roots; Correlation
characterization of distribution of sample, coefficient; Covariance matrix;
77 Cumulative distribution function; Density;
confidence bounds for quadratic fonn in, Generalized variance, Mean vector;
442 Multiple correlation coefficient;
consistency of sample as estimator of Multivariate nonnal density; Multivariate
population, 86 I-distribution; Noncentral chi-squared
distribution of sample, 255 distribution; Noncentral F-distribution;
estimation, see Best estimator of Noncentral T 2-distribution; Partial
geometrical interpretation of sample, 72 correlation coefficient; Principal
with linear structure, 113 components; Regression coefficients;
maximum likelihood estimator of, 70 T2.test and statistic; Wishart distribution
computation of, 70 Distribution of matrix of sums of squares and
when the mean vector is known, 112 cross-products, see Wishart distribution
of nonnal distribution, 20 Duplication formula for gamma function, 82,
sample, 77 125,309
singular, 31
tests of hypotheses, see Testillg that a ,c,9
covariance matrix is a given matrix; Efficiency of vector estimate, definition of, 85
Testing that a covariance matrix is Ellipsoid of concentration of vector estimate,
proportional to a given matrix; Testing 58,85
that a covariance matrix and mean vector ElIipsoid of constant density, 32
are equal to a given matrix and vector; Elliptically contoured distribution, 47
Testing eqUality of covariance matrices; characteristic function of, 53
Testing equality of covariance matrices characteristic roots and vectors, asymptotic
and 'mean vectors; Testing independence distribution of, 482, 564
of sets of variates correlation coefficient, asymptotic
unbiased estimator of, 77 distribution of, 159
Covariance selection models, 614 covariance of, 50 .
decomposition of, 618 covariance of sample covariance, 101
estimation in, 614 covariance of sample mean, 101
Cramer-Rao lower bound, 85 cumulants of, 54
Critical function, 192 kurtosis of, 54
Cumulants, 46 likelihood ratio criterion for f'quaIiI) of
of a muItivanate nonnal distribution, 46 covariance matrices, asymptotic
Cumulative distribution function (edt), 7 distribution of, 451
likelihood ratio criterion for itdenendcnce
Decision procedure, 88 of sets, asymptotic distribution of, 406
Degenerate J'lonnal distribution, 30 likelihood ratio criterion for linear
Density,7 hypotheses, asymptotic distribution of, 371
conditional, 12 maximum likelihood estimator of
nonnal,34 parameters, 104
marginal,9 multiple correlation coefficient, asymptotic
nonna!, 27, 29 distnbution of, 159
multivariate nonnal, 20 rectangular coordinates, asymptotic
Detenn!nallt, 626 distribution of, 283
derivative of, 642 test for regression coefficients, 371
symmetric matrix, 642 Elliptically contoured matrix distribution, 104
Dirichlet distribution, 290 characteristic roots and vectors, distribution
Discriminant function, see Classification into of, 483, 566
nonnal populations likelihood ratio criterion for equality of
Distance, 631 covariance matrices, distribution of, 454
716 INDEX

EIIip t i:a1ly contoured matrix (Continued) Generalized analysis of varianc::, see

likelihood .:atio criterion for independence Multivariate analySis of va riance;
of sets, distribution of, 408 Regression coefficients and function
likelihood ratiO criterion for linear Generalized T2, see T2-test and statistic
hypotheses, distribution of, 373 Generalized variance, 264
rectangular coordinates, distribution of, 285 asymptotic distribution of sample, 270
stocha3tic representation. 160, 285 distribution of sample. 268
sufficient statistics, 160 geometric interpretation of sample in N
r 2-distribution of, 200 dimen:;ions, 267
Equiangular Iinc, 72 in p dimensions. 268
Exp, 15 invartance of, 465
Expected value of complex-valued function, moments of sample, 269
41 sample. 265
Exponential family of distribution:;, 194 Gcncrallincar hypothcsis, see Unear
Extended region, 355 hypothesis, testing of; Regression
coefflcients and function
Factor analysis, 569 Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. 252, 647
centroid method, 586 Graphical mod,:ls, 595
communalities, 581 adjacent, nonadjacent vertices, 596
confirmatory, 574 AMP (Ander,'IOn-Madigan-Perlman)
EM algorithm, 580, 593 Markov chain, 612
exploratory. 574 ancestor, 605
general factor, 570 boundary, 598
identification of structure in, 572 chain graph, 630
by specified zeros, 571, 593 chi'd.605
loadings, 570 clique. 602
maximum likelihood estimators, 578 closure, 598
asymptotic distribution of, 582 complete, 602
in case of identification by zeros, 590 decomposition. 603
nonexistence for fixed factors, 587 descendant. Ilondescendant, 605
for random factors, 583 edges, 595
minimum distance methods, 583 directed, undirected, 596
model,570 LWF (Lmritzen-Wermuth-Frydenberg)
oblique factors, 571 Markov chain, 610
orthogonal factors, 571 Markov properties, 597
prinCipal component analySis, relation globally, 600
to, 584 locally, 598
rotation of factors, 571 pairwise, 597
scores, estimation of, 591 moral graph, ()o8
simple structure, 573 nodes, 595
!:ipacc of f<lCtll~ 572 parCllt, (>05
transfonnations, 588 partial ordering, 605
tests of fi t for, 581 path, 600
units of measurement, 575 recurl'ivc factorization, 609
varimax criterion, modified, 589 separate, 600
Factorization theorem, 83 vertices. 595
Fisher's Z, 133 well-numbered, 607
asymptotic distribution of, 134
moments of, 134 Haar invariant distribution of orthogonal
See also Correlation coefficient; Partial matrices, 162, 541
correlation coefficient conditional distribution, 542
Hadamard'S inequality, 61
Head lengths and breadths of brothers, 109
f p(t),257 HoteHing's r 2, see r 2-test and statistic
Gamma function, multivariate, 257 Hypergeometric function, 126
INDEX 717

Incomplete beta function, 329 coefficients; T~-test; Testing that a

Independence, 10 covariance matrix is given matrix; Testing
mutual, 11 that a covariance matrix is proportional
of nonnal variables, 26 to given matrix; Testing that a covariance
of sample mean vector and sample matrix and mean vector are equal to a
covariance matrix, 77 given matrix and vector; Testing equality
tests of, see Correlation coefficient; Multiple of covariance matrices; Testing equality
correlation coefficient; Testing of covariance matrices and mean vectors:
independence of sets of variates Testing independence of ~ets of variates
Information matrix, 85 Line,lr combinati{)n:;. of normal variables.
Integral of a symmetric unimodal function over di~tribution of, 29
a symmetriC convex set, 365 Linear equations, solution of, 606
Intraclass correlation, 484 by Gaussian elimination. 607
Invariance, see Classification into normal Linear functional relationship. 513
populations; Correlation coefficient; relation to simultaneous equations, 520
Generalized variance; Linear hypothesiS; Linear hypothesis. testing of
Multiple correlation coefficient; Partial admissibility of. 353
correlation coefficient; T 2-test; Testing necessary condition for, 363
that a covariance matrix is a given matrix; BartIett-Nanda-PilIai trace criterion, 331
Testing that a covariance matrix is admiSSibility of, 379
proportional to a given matrix; Testing asymptotic expansion of distribution
equality of covariance matrices; Testing of, 333
equality of covariance matrices and means as Bayes procedure, 378
vectorsj Testing Independence of sets of table of significance points of, 673
variates tabulation of power of, 333
Inverted Wishart distribution 272 canonical form of, 303
Iris, four measurements on, 110, 180 comparison of powers, 334
invariance of criteria, 327
Lawley-Hotelling trace criterion, 328
Jacobian, 13 admissibility of, 379
James-Stein estimator, 91 asymptotic expansion of distribution
for arbitrary known covariance matrix, 97 of, 330
average mean squared error of, 95 monotonicity of power function of. 368
table of significance points of. 657
Kronecker delta, 75 tabulation of, 328
Kronecker product of matrices, 643 likelihood ratio criterion. 3l1O
characteristic roots of, 643 admissibility of, 378
determinant of, 643 asymptotic expansion of distribution
Kurtosi~, 54
of. 321
as Bayes procedure. 378
estimation of. 103
distrihut ion~ of. 306, 310
F-approximation to distribution of. 326
Latin square, 377 geometric intcrpretation llf. 302
Lawley-HoteIIing trace crit~rion, see Unear moments of. 309
hypothesis monotonicity of power function of, ~68
Least squares estimator, 295 nonnal approximation to distribution
Ukelihood, induced, 71 of,323
Likelihood function for sample from table of significance points. 651
multivariate nonnal distribution, 67 tabulation of distribution of. 314
Likelihood loss function for covariance matrix, Wilks' A, 300
276 monotonicity of power function of an
Likelihood ratio test, definition of. 129. See invariant te:>t, 363
also Correlation coefficient; Linear Roy's maximum root criterion. 333
hypothesis; Mean vector; Multiple distribution for p = 2, 334
correlation coefficient; Regression monotonicity of power function of. 368
718 INDEX

Linear hypothesis (Conlinued) Maximum likelihood estimator of function of

taok: of significance po(nt~. 677 parameters. 71
tablulation of distribution of. 333 Maximum of the likelihood function, 70
~tep.down test. 314 Maximum of variance of linear combinations,
SI!I! also Regression coefficients and function 464. See also Principal componentl\
Linearly independent vectors, 627 Mean vector, 17
Linear transfonnation of a nonnal vector. 23, asymptotic normality of sample, 86
29.31 completeness of sample as an estimator of'
Lo~s. 88 population, 84
LR dccompol\[tion. 630 confidcnce regilln for diffcrencc or lwo
when common covariance matrix is
Mahalanobis distance, 80, 217 known. 80
sample. 22H when covariance matrix is unknown.
M<1jorization. 355 180
weak. 355 consistency of sample as estimate of
Marginal density. 9 population. 86
distribution. g distribution of sample, 76
normal. 27 efficiency of sample, 85
~'Iuthematical expl:ctatioll. 9 improved c."timalor when covariance matrix
.\1 at ri:x. 624 is unknown, 185
bidiagonal. upper. 503 maximum likelihood estimator of, 70
characteristic roots and vectors of, see sample. 67
Characteristic roots and vectors simultaneous confidence regions for linear
cofactor in. 627 functions of, 178
cOllvexity. 358 testing equality of, in several distributions,
definition of. 624 206
diagonalization of symmetric. 631 testing equality of two when common
doubl~ stochastic, 646 covariance matrix is known, 80
eigenvalue. see Characteristic roots and tests of hypothesis about
vectors when covariance matrix is known, 80
Givens, 471, 649 when covariance matrix is unk'lown, see
Householder. 470. 650 T 2-test
idempotent. 635 See also James-Stein estimator
Identity. 62n Minimax, 90
inverse. 627 Missing obl\ervations, maximum likelihood
minor of. 627 esl imators, 16M
nonsingular. 627 Modulus. 13
operations with. 625 Moments, 9.41
positive definite, 628 factoring of. II
positive semidefinite. 628 from marginnl distributions, I()
rank of. 618 of mlrmal distributions, 46
symmetric, 626 Monotone region, 355
trace of. 629 in majorization. ~55
transpose. 625 Multiple correlation coefficient
triangular. 629 adjul\ted, 153
tridiagonal. 470 distribulion of sample
Mat rix of sums of squares and cross-products conditional, 154
of deviations from the means, 68 when population correlation is not
Maximum likdihllOd estimators, see Canonical zero. 156
correlati()n!: and variates: Correlation when population c()rrelation IS zero,
coefficient: Covariance matrix; Mean 150
vector; Multiple correlation coefficient; geometric interpretation of sample, 148
Pmlial (Hrciation coefficient: Principal invariance of population, liD
componenh; Regression coefricient:>; invarianec of sample, 166
Variance likdihllod ralio leSllh;lt il is zero. 151
INDEX 719

a" maximum correlation between one inverse of, 638

variable and lincar combination of other multiplication of, 635
variables, 38 Partioning of a vector, 635
maximum likelihood estimator of, 147 of a mean vector, 25
moments of sample, 156 of a random vector, 24
optimal properties of, 157 Path analysis, 596. See also Graphical models
population, 38 Pearson correlation coefficient, see
sample, 145 Correlation coefficient
1:
tabulation of distribution of, 7 Plane of closest fit, 466
Multivariate analysis of variancc (MANOVA), ('\lIar cooruinalcl', 2H5
346 Positive definite matrix, 628
Latin square, 377 Positive part of a function, 96
one-way, 342 of [he Jamcl>-Stcin cl'[imiltor. Q7
two-way, 346 Positive semidefinite matrix, 628
See also Unear hypothesis, testing of Precision matrix, 272
Multivariate beta distribution, 377 unbi ..:;cd cstimat(lr of, 274
Multivariate of gamma function, 257 PrinCipal axes of ellipsoids of constant density,
Multivariate normal density, 20 465. See also Principal components
distribution, 20 Principal componcnts, 459
computation of, 23 asymptotic distribution of sample, 473
Multivariate t-distribution, 276, 289 computation of, 469
confidence region for, 475, 477
n(xllL, E), 20
distribution of sample, 540, 542
N(IL,E),20
maximum likelihood estimator of, 467
Neyman-Pearson fundamental lemlna, 248 population, 464
Noncentral chi-squared distribution, 82 testing hypotheses about, 478, 479, 480
Noncentral F-distributio'1, 186 Probability element, 8
tables of, 186 Product-moment correlation coefficient, see
Noncentral T 2-distribution, 186 Correlation coefficient

QL algorithm, 471 I
O(N xp), 161 QR algorithm, 471
Orthonormal vectors. 647 decomposition, 647
Quadratic fonn, 628
Parallelotope. 266 Quadratic loss function for covariance matrix,
volume of, 266 '176
Partial correlation coefficient
computational fonnulas for, 39, 40, 41 r,71
confidence intervals for, 143 :X' (real purt), 257
distribution of 5amplc, 143 RHnd\)1ll matrix, I()
geometric interpretation of :;ample, 138 expected valuc of, 17
invariance of population, 63 Random vector, 16
invariancc (.f I>!lmple, 166 R,mdolllizcd tC~I, definition of, 192
maximum likelihood estimator of, 138 Rectangular coordinates, 257
in the population, 35 distribution of, 255, 257
recursion formula for, 41 Reduced rank regression, 514
sample, 138 estimator, asymptotic distribution of,
tests about, 144 550
Partial covariancc, 34 Regrcssion el)LI'ficicnt,; and function, 34
estimator of, 137 cortfidenec rcgions for, 339
Partial variance, 34 distribution of sample, 297
Partioning of a matrix, 635 geomctric intcrpretation of sample, 138
addition of. 6:l5 maximum likelihood estimator of, 294
of a covariam!c matrix, 25 pHrli(l1 corrcialion, connection with, 61
UCll!nninant of, 037 sample, 294
720 INDEX

Regression coefficients (Continued) optimal properties of, 190

simultaneous confidence intelVals for, 340, power of, 186
341 tables of, 186
testing hypotheses of rank of, 512 for testing equality of means when
testing they are zero, in case of one covariance matrices are different, 187
dependent variable, 152 for testing equality of two mean vectors
Residuals from regression, 37 when covariance matrix is unknown, 179
Risk function, 88 for testing symmetry in mean vector, 182
as uniformly most powerful invariant test of
Selection of linear combinations, 201 mean vector, 191
Simple correlation coefficient, See Correlation Testing that a covariance matrix is a given
coefficient matrix, 438
Simultaneous equations, 513 invariant tests of, 442
estimation of coefficients, 518 likelihood ratio criterion for, 438
least variance ratio (LVR), 519 modified likelihood ratio criterion for, 438
limited infonnation maximum likelihood asymptotic expansion of distribution of,
(LlML),519 442
two stage least squares (TSLS), 522 moments of, 440
identificati0n by zeros, 516 table of significance points, 685
reduced fonn, 516 Nagao's criterion, 442
estimation of, 517 Testing that a covariance matrix is
Singular nonnal distribution, 30, 31 proportional to a given matrix, 431
Singular value decomposition, 498, 634 invariant tests, 436
Spherical distribution, 105 likelihood ratio criterion for, 434
left, 105 admissibility, 458
right, 105 asymptotic expansion of distribution of,
vector, 105 435
Spherical nonnal distribution, 23 moments of, 434
Spherically contoured distribution 47 table of significance points, 682
stochastic representation, 49 Nagao's criterion, 437
unifonn distribution, 48 Testing that a covarll\nce matrix and mean
Sphericity test, see Testing that a covariance vector are equal to a given matrix and
matrix is proportional to a given matrix vector, 444
Standardized sum statistics, 201 likelihood ratio criterion for, 444
Standardized variable, 22 asymptotic expansion of distribution of,
Steifel manifold, 162 446
Stochastic convergence, 113 moments of, 445
of a sequence of random matrices, 113 Testing equality of covariance matrices, 412
Sufficiency, definition of, 83 invarianct tests, 428
Sufficiency of sllmple mean VeClor and likelihood ralio crilerion for, 413
covariance matrix, 83 invariance of, 414
Surface area of unit sphere, 286 modified likelihood ratio criterion for, 413
Surfaces 0' constant density, 22 admissihility of, 449
Symmetric matrix, 626 asymptotic expansion of distribution of,
425
T 2-statistic, 17(" See also T 2-test and statistic distribution of, 420
T 2-test and statistic, 173 moments of, 422
admissibility of, 196 table of significance points, 681
as Bayes procedure, 199 Nagao's criterion for, 415
distribution of statistic, 176 Testing equality of covariance matrices and
geor.1et ric mterpretation of statistic, 174 mean vectors, 415
invariance of, 173 likelihood ratio criterion for, 415
as IikeIinood ratio test of mean vector, 176 asymptotic expansion of distribution of,
limiting distribution of, 176 426
noncentral distribution of statistic, 186 distribution of, 421
INDEX 721

moments of, 422 Total correlation coeffICient ,\-ee Correlation

unbiasedness of, 416 coefficient
Testing independence of sets of variates, T_ ace of a matrix. 629
381 Transformation of variables. 12
and canonical correlations, 504
likelihood ratio criterion for, 384 Unbiased estimator. definition of, 77
admissibility of, 401 Unibased test, definition of, 364
asymptotic expansion of distribution of, Uniform distribution on unil ~phcrc. 48
390 on O(NXp), 162
distribution of, 388
Variance, 17
invariance of, 386
generalized, see Generalized variance
moments of, 388
maximum likelihOod estimator of, 71
monotonicity of power functIon of, 404
unbiasedness of, 386 w(AI E,n), 255
Nagao's test, 392 W(E,n),255
asymptotic expansion of dIstribution of. w- I (BI'l1,m),272
392 w - I ( 'if , m), 272
step down tests, 393 Wishart distribution, 256
Testing rank of regression matrices, 512 characteristic function of. 258
Tests of hypotheses, see Correlation geometric interpretation of, 256
coefficient; Generalized analysis of marginal distributions of, 260
variance; Linear hypothesis; Mean vector; noncentral, 587
Multiple correlation coefficient; Partial for p "" 2, 124
correlation coefficient; Regression
coefficients; T2_test and statistic Z,see Fisher's Z
Tetmchoric functions, 23 Zonal polynomials. 473