MathLabs
TheoremProved

Exact significance level of the two-sided z-test

Statement

Let X1,…,XnX_1, \ldots, X_n be independent, identically distributed as N(μ0,σ2)N(\mu_0, \sigma^2) with σ\sigma known, and let Z=Xˉ−μ0σ/nZ = \frac{\bar{X} - \mu_0}{\sigma / \sqrt{n}}. Let zα/2z_{\alpha/2} be the value with P(Z>zα/2)=α/2P(Z > z_{\alpha/2}) = \alpha/2 for the standard normal distribution. Then the test that rejects H0:μ=μ0H_0: \mu = \mu_0 when ∣Z∣>zα/2|Z| > z_{\alpha/2} satisfies P(reject H0∣H0)=αP(\text{reject } H_0 \mid H_0) = \alpha exactly.

Why is it true?

The rejection region is built directly from the exact distribution of ZZ under H0H_0, so its probability under H0H_0 can be computed exactly rather than merely bounded, giving a test whose false-positive rate is controlled precisely at the chosen level α\alpha, not just approximately.

Proof sketch

Step 1 (distribution of ZZ under H0H_0): since X1,…,XnX_1, \ldots, X_n are i.i.d. N(μ0,σ2)N(\mu_0, \sigma^2), the sample mean Xˉ\bar{X} is distributed as N(μ0,σ2/n)N(\mu_0, \sigma^2/n), so standardizing gives Z=Xˉ−μ0σ/n∼N(0,1)Z = \frac{\bar{X} - \mu_0}{\sigma/\sqrt{n}} \sim N(0, 1) exactly.

Step 2 (probability of the rejection event): the rejection event is ∣Z∣>zα/2|Z| > z_{\alpha/2}, which splits into the two disjoint events Z>zα/2Z > z_{\alpha/2} and Z<−zα/2Z < -z_{\alpha/2}, so P(∣Z∣>zα/2)=P(Z>zα/2)+P(Z<−zα/2)P(|Z| > z_{\alpha/2}) = P(Z > z_{\alpha/2}) + P(Z < -z_{\alpha/2}).

Step 3 (use symmetry of the standard normal): the standard normal density is symmetric about 00, so P(Z<−zα/2)=P(Z>zα/2)P(Z < -z_{\alpha/2}) = P(Z > z_{\alpha/2}); by the definition of zα/2z_{\alpha/2}, each of these two probabilities equals α/2\alpha/2.

Step 4 (add the two pieces): substituting into Step 2, P(∣Z∣>zα/2)=α/2+α/2=αP(|Z| > z_{\alpha/2}) = \alpha/2 + \alpha/2 = \alpha, and since this probability was computed exactly under H0H_0 (using Step 1), P(reject H0∣H0)=αP(\text{reject } H_0 \mid H_0) = \alpha exactly, as claimed.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.