Two-Sample Test for Sparse High Dimensional Multinomial
Distributions

arXiv:1711.05524v1 [] 15 Nov 2017

Amanda Plunkett ∗and Junyong Park

†

Abstract
In this paper we consider testing the equality of probability vectors of two independent multinomial distributions in high dimension. The classical chi-square test may have some drawbacks
in this case since many of cell counts may be zero or may not be large enough. We propose a
new test and show its asymptotic normality and the asymptotic power function. Based on the
asymptotic power function, we present an application of our result to neighborhood type test
which has been previously studied, especially for the case of fairly small p-values. To compare
the proposed test with existing tests, we provide numerical studies including simulations and
real data examples.
Key words : Two sample test; High dimensional multinomial; Sparseness

1

Introduction

In this paper, we discuss the problem of testing two multinomial distributions when the number
of categories is large. Specifically, when we have two vectors Nc = (Nc1 , . . . , Nck ) for c = 1, 2
which follow multinomial distributions, M ultinomial(nc , Pc , k) where Pc = (pc1 , pc2 , . . . , pck ) is a
probability vector, our testing scenario is
H0 : P1 = P2 vs. H1 : P1 6= P2 .

(1)

Our particular interest is a high dimensional multinomial with sparsity in the sense that k is
large with a majority of categories having fairly small counts, such as 0, 1, or 2. Typical examples
are the cases where k > nc and pci ’s are close to 0. Some existing tests such as Pearson chi-square
test are based on large number of counts in each cell, however this may not occur under sparse data
especially when k is larger than nc for c = 1, 2. The test that we propose is applicable to this sparse
case and also more general cases including non-sparseness under some regular conditions presented
later.
In fact, the hypothesis in (1) is equivalent to testing the equality of two mean vectors of two
multinomial distributions M ultinomial(1, Pc , k) for c = 1, 2 with sample sizes n1 and n2 . For
testing the equality of two population mean vectors, there are numerous studies. For example, see
Bai and Saranadasa(1996), Chen and Qin (2010), Srivastava (2009), Srivastava et al. (2013) and
Park and Ayyala (2013). However, multinomial distribution does not satisfy the assumptions such
as factor models used in these references.
∗

Department of Defense, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. Meade, MD 20755, U.S.A. amanplunkett@gmail.com
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, U.S.A.junpark@umbc.edu
†

1

On the other hand, Zelterman (1987) discussed goodness of fit tests in sparse contingency tables
and also proposed the test when the null probabilities are unknown. Zelterman (1987) includes the
mean and variance of his proposed test and proposed the normal approximation of standardized
form of the test. From a theoretical point of view, Zelterman’s test requests some conditions on
the cell probabilities and some relationship between the number of cells and the frequency totals
in contingency table.
It is worth while to noting that the goodness of fit test from one sample has a different context
from the two sample problem. In other words, the goodness of fit test is testing H0 : P = P0 for
a given P0 = (p01 , . . . , p0k ) and N = (N1 , . . . , Nk ). There are extensive studies on the goodness of
fit testing problem for one sample such a s Morris (1975), Cressie and Read (1984) and Kim et al.
(2009) and all these studies on goodness of fit tests are different from the two sample problem in
(1) in the sense that test statistics for goodness of fit under the null hypothesis P = P0 utilize P0 .
In this paper, we propose a new test statistic to test (1) for two samples of multinomial distributions. We provide asymptotic distribution and power function of the proposed test and show
numerical studies. In particular, we emphasize that our asymptotic results provide more general
results than Zelterman (1987).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss existing methods that can be applied
to our testing (1). In Sections 3-4, we present our proposed test statistics and prove their asymptotic
normality. We propose a new test statistic and show its asymptotic null distribution and asymptotic
power function. In Section 5, we consider an application of our proposed test based on asymptotic
power function. We define a neighborhood test, which is used in conjunction with our test statistic
in Section 7 to analyze the 20 newsgroups dataset. In Section 6 we show the performance of our test
compared to other existing tests through the use of simulation experiments. Concluding remarks
are presented in section 8.

2

Existing methods for Comparison of Two Multinomial Distributions

Suppose we have Nc = (Nc1 , Nc2 , . . . , Nck ) for c = 1, 2 whichPhas the multinomial distribution,
k
namely M ultinomial(nc , Pc , k) ≡ M(nc , Pc , k) where nc =
i=1 Nci . One typical method for
testing (1) is to use Pearson’s χ2 test, which is reliable when sample size in each cell is large
enough. Pearson’s χ2 statistic is defined as follows:
χ2 =

2
X

(Nci − N̂ci )2

X

c=1 i∈{i:Nci >0}

N̂ci

(2)

+N2i
where N̂ci = p̂i nc for p̂i = Nn1i1 +n
is the expected count and Nci is the observed count for the ith
2
vector entry of the cth group. As a related work, Anderson et al.(1972) applied a union-intersection
method to develop a procedure for testing the homogeneity of two sample multinomial data and
showed that their test is eventually equivalent to the Pearson chi-square test. The approximation
based on chi-square distribution to (2) may be poor when the number of frequencies Nci is not
large enough.
Alternatively, Zelterman (1987) proposed a goodness-of-fit statistic for contingency tables which
provides improved power over the χ2 test when the χ2 is biased due to sparseness. They presented

2

the conditional mean and variance of their proposed test conditioning on the marginal totals. They
applied the asymptotic normality of the normalized form of their proposed test, which is effective
especially for sparse and large dimensional contingency tables. Zelterman’s test is
D̂Z2 − E(D̂Z2 )
Z= q
V ar(D̂Z2 )
where D̂Z2 =

P2

c=1

Pk ?

i=1

(3)

(Nci −N̂ci )2 −Nci
2i
, N̂ci = p̂i nc for p̂i = Nn1i1 +N
+n2 , and Nci is the observed value
N̂ci
cth group. Zelterman (1987) presented E(D̂Z2 ) and V ar(D̂Z2 ). From a

for the ith entry of the
theoretical point of view, Zelterman (1987) mentioned that the asymptotic normality of Z in (3)
can hold when n and k have the same increasing rate and the cell probabilities have the rates
between Mk1 and Mk2 for some constants M1 < M2 . Theses imply npci ≥  > 0 for some constant
 which means that the expected counts under the null hypothesis should be bounded away from
0. Our proposed test is motivated by the estimator of Euclidean distance between two probability
vectors and demonstrate some advantage over the test in Zelterman (1987) in two sample case.
This advantage can be understood through both theory and numerical studies as we will show.
Additionally, there are many studies for testing the equality of mean vectors under some models
such as factor models, for example, see Bai and Saranadasa (1996), Chen and Qin (2010), Park
and Ayyala (2013) and Srivastava (2009). As mentioned in the introduction, the multinomial
distribution does not satisfy the conditions in all these studies. However, our problem for two
multinomial distributions N1 and N2 is considered as testing (1) when there are Ncl where Ncl ∼
M ultinomial(1, Pc , k) for l = 1, . . . , nc and c = 1, 2. This is actually the case of testing the equality
of mean vectors of N1l and N2l which is H0 : P1 = P2 in (1). The tests in Park and Ayyala (2013)
and Srivastava (2009) are not well defined in our setting due to zero values in many cells. We will
consider the test in Bai and Saranadasa (1996) in our numerical studies while the test in Chen
and Qin (2010) is not practical under our situation due to computational complexity when nc s are
thousands.
In the following section, we propose a new test and show its asymptotic normality and the
asymptotic power under some conditions. We will also provide numerical studies comparing our
proposed test with existing methods as well as a real data example.

3

New Test Statistic for Comparison of Two Multinomial Distributions

In this section, we propose a new test and derive the asymptotic power of the proposed test from
the asymptotic normality under some regularity conditions.

3.1

The Proposed Test Statistic

We present a new procedure for testing the hypotheses in (1) when the dimension of the multinomial vector is large. Our main goal is to propose a new test and derive the asymptotic distribution
and asymptotic power function of the proposed test. The
test is based on an unbiPproposed
k
2
2
ased estimator
i=1 (p1i − p2i ) = ||P1 − P2 ||2 where
qP of Euclidean distance between P1 and P2 :
k
2
||x||2 =
i=1 xi for x = (x1 , . . . , xk ). Before we construct our test statistic, we mention that
3

we reformulate the multinomial distributed
vector (Nc1 , . . . , Nck ) as the conditional distribution of
Pk
(Xc1 , . . . , Xck ) given the total sum i=1 Xci where Xci s come from an independent Poisson distriP
d
d
bution with mean λci = nc pci , i.e., (Nc1 , . . . , Nck ) ≡ (Xc1 , . . . , Xck )| ki=1 Xci = nc where ≡ means
the equivalence of two distributions. Morris (1975) provided asymptotic results for the multinomial
distribution using Poisson distributions conditioning on the total sum. We first propose our test
statistic based on independent Poisson distributions (Xci )1≤i≤k and then we provide asymptotic
P
results conditioning on the total sums, ki=1 Xci = nc . In the observational vector of independent
Poisson variables, say Xc = (Xci )1≤i≤k with Xci ∼ P oisson(λci ) for λci = nc pci , we define
||P1 −

P2 ||22

=

2

λ1 λ2
−
n1
n2

=
2

k 
X
λ1i

λ2i
−
n1
n2

i=1

2
.

(4)

and, to obtain an unbiased estimator for (4), we introduce
∗

f (x1 , x2 ) =



x1
x2
−
n1 n2

2
−

x1
x2
− 2.
2
n1 n2

(5)

We obtain an unbiased estimator of ||P1 − P2 ||22 based on Xc for c = 1, 2 which is
!


k
k
X
X
X1i X2i 2 X1i X2i
f ∗ (X1i , X2i )
D≡
−
− 2 − 2 =
n1
n2
n
n
1
2
i=1
i=1

(6)

satisfying E(D) = ||P1 − P2 ||22 . Theorem 1 and Corollary 2 will show that the normalized form
q D
for some estimator V\
ar(D) has the asymptotic normal distribution for multinomial vector.
V\
ar(D)

The Euclidean distance is commonly used for testing the equality of mean vectors of multivariate
normal distributions or factor models with some moment conditions. See Bai and Saranadasa
(1995) and Chen and Qin (2010). In the context of testing in contingency tables, the idea for the
chi-square distribution is to consider the goodness of fit for each cell using standardized quantities
2
+N2i
c p̂i )
under the null hypothesis, (Ncin−n
for p̂i = Nn1i1 +n
. However, the denominator nc p̂i in (2)
c p̂i
2
is affected by cell probabilities which may lead to very skewed distribution for small pi s. In our
context, the sparse multinomial data are from small probabilities in most of cells, so chi-square
approximation to each cell may not be desirable. On the other hand, our proposed tests based on
D in (6) first aggregate estimates of (p1i − p2i )2 and then consider the normalization of D. This
difference will lead to different performance between our proposed test and the test (3).
We first present the following theorem which plays a major role in deriving the asymptotic
distribution of our proposed test and the asymptotic power. We use the following notation: let
1/q
P
q
A = (aij )1≤i≤m,1≤j≤n and ||A||q =
|a
|
for q > 0. Let Pc = (pc1 , . . . , pck ) for c = 1, 2 and
ij
i,j
P
ξ = P1 − P2 . For two vectors P1 and P2 , the dot product is P1 · P2 = ki=1
component√ p1i p2i and
√
√
wise product of P1 and P2 is P1 ∗P2 = (p11 p21 , . . . , p1k p2k ). We also define Pc = ( pc1 , . . . , pck )
and |ξ| = (|ξ1 |, . . . , |ξk |). Let n be a sequence satisfying n1  n2  n where An  Bn implies
d

An
An
0 < lim inf n B
≤ lim supn B
< ∞ for sequences An > 0 and Bn > 0. The notion → implies
n
n
convergence in distribution.

Theorem 1. Let Nc be independent multinomial random vectors for c = 1, 2 such as M(nc , Pc , k)
4

where Nc = (Nci )1≤i≤k and Pc = (pci )1≤i≤k for c = 1, 2. Suppose the following conditions are
satisfied: for n = n1 + n2 ,
n1
→ c ∈ (0, 1),
n

Condition 1:

min(n1 , n2 ) → ∞,

Condition 2:

maxi p2ci
→ 0 for c = 1, 2 as k → ∞,
||Pc ||22

Condition 3:

n||P1 + P2 ||22 ≥  > 0

Condition 4:

n

2

||ξ||42

= O(||P1 +

for some  > 0,

P2 ||22 ).

Then, we have
Pk

i=1 f

∗ (N , N )
1i
2i

− ||ξ||22

σk

d

→ N (0, 1)

(7)

where
σk2

=2

k 
X
p1i
i=1

p2i
+
n1
n2

2
(8)

and f ∗ is given by (5).
Proof. The proof of Theorem 1 will be provided in section 4 with a series of lemmas.
Remark 1. The conditions in Theorem 1 will be used throughout this paper. The sample sizes nc
for c = 1, 2 and the dimension k. do not have explicit relationship. This is in contrast to (3) in
Zelterman (1987) assuming that k and n have the same increasing rate for the theoretical proof of
the asymptotic normality. Instead, our conditions in Theorem 1 do not require direct relationship
between k and nc . Rather, the relationship between k and n are only through Conditions 3 in
Theorem 1. For example, when pci  1/k and n  k, then the condition 3 requests k = O(n)
which includes the case of k  n in Zelterman (1987). However, the condition 3 covers a variety of
1
2
situations compared to Zelterman (1987). For example, when pci = Pk1/i ∼ i log
k and (log k) =
i=1

1/i

O(n), all four conditions in Theorem 1 are satisfied. The condition (log k)2 = O(n) allows k to
√
increase at the rate of exp( n). In other words, our conditions include more general relationship
between nc and k through depending on the configurations of pci s.
P
In Theorem 1, ni=1 f ∗ (N1i , N2i ) is known, however σk2 is unknown, so we need to have some
estimates of σk2 defined in (8) which have an asymptotically equivalent behavior. Our proposed
test is constructed under the null hypothesis H0 : P1 = P2 . For derivation of σk2 , see the proof of
Lemma 2 in section 4. In practice, we need some estimate of σk2 based on multinomial data Nc for
c = 1, 2. We propose an estimator of σk2 which is
σ̂k2



k X
2
k
X
p̂ci
4 X
2
2
=
p̂ci −
+
p̂1i p̂2i
n2c
nc
n1 n2
i=1 c=1

+n2 p2i
where pi = n1 pn1i1 +n
and p̂ci =
2
property of ratio consistency.

Nci
nc .

(9)

i=1

Lemma 1 states that the proposed estimator of σk2 has the

5

Lemma 1. Under conditions 1 and 2 in Theorem 1,

σ̂k2
σk2

p

→ 1.

Proof. See Appendix.
Based on the estimators σ̂k2 , we define the following two test statistics, namely T ;
Pk
T ≡

i=1 f

∗ (N , N )
1i
2i

(10)

σ̂k

where f ∗ is defined in (5). From Theorem 1 and Lemma 1, T is asymptotic normal under the H0 .
We state this in the following corollary.
d

Corollary 1. Under H0 , if Conditions 1 and 2 in Theorem 1 are satisfied, then T → N (0, 1) where
T is defined in (10).
Corollary 1 shows that our proposed test is available for practical use under fairly mild conditions
1 − 3 of Theorem 1. Based on Corollary 1, we reject H0 if
T > z1−α

(11)

where z1−α is the 1−α quantile of a standard normal distribution. In practice, our test requests only
conditions 1−3 of Theorem 1 to have asymptotic size α test for a given α ∈ (0, 1). Additionally, it is
of interest to investigate the power function of our proposed tests. In particular, the power function
from Theorem 1 is meaningful when the signal-to-noise ratio SN R ≡ ||ξ||22 /σk for ξ = P1 − P2 is
bounded, i.e., SN R = O(1). which is the case that the asymptotic power is non-trivial in the sense
that the power is in (0, 1). Condition 4 in Theorem 1 is equivalent to the condition that the SNR
is bounded by some constant as k → ∞.
Corollary 2. Under the conditions in Theorem 1, we have


||P1 − P2 ||22
P (T > z1−α ) − Φ̄ z1−α −
→0
σk

(12)

where Φ̄(z) = 1 − Φ(z) = P (Z > z) for a standard normal random variable Z and z1−α is the
(1 − α) quantile of a standard normal distribution.
Proof. From Theorem 1 and Lemma 1, we have (12).
Remark 2. It is clear that under H0 , the proposed test is asymptotically size-α test since ||P1 −
P2 || = 0 under H0 .
In the following section, we provide the proof of Theorem 1.

4

Asymptotic Normality of the proposed tests

In this section we prove Theorem 1. The main difficulty is the dependency imposed by the multinomial distribution. In other words, f ∗ (N1i , N2i )s are not independent since Nci s have dependency
for 1 ≤ i ≤ k from the multinomial distributions. Therefore, it is not straightforward to apply
the central limit theorem based on the assumption of independence. Instead, Steck (1957) and
6

Morris (1975) use conditional central limit theory for independent Poisson distributions conditioning on sums of Poisson variables to have the asymptotic normality of multinomial distributions. More specifically, to avoid the issue of dependency from the multinomial distribution, we
use the fact that
multinomial random vector (Nc1 , Nc2 , . . . , Nck ) has the same distribution as
Pthe
k
(Xc1 , . . . , Xck )| i=1 Xci = nc where Xci s are independent Poisson random variables with mean
λci = nc pci . Before we present our main results, we first define the following notations:
fi (x1i , x2i ) = f ∗ (x1i , x2i ) − (p1i − p2i )2
|
{z
}

(13)

G1i (x1i ,x2i )


−2(p1i − p2i )
|

x1i x2i
−
n1
n2
{z



G2i (x1i ,x2i )

+ 2(p1i − p2i )2
}

(14)

Pk
Fk =

i=1 fi (X1i , X2i )

σk
Pk
G2i (X1i , X2i )
i=1 G1i (X1i , X2i )
+ i=1
=
σk
σk
k
1 X
= √
(Xci − λci ) for c = 1, 2.
nc
Pk

Uck

(15)
(16)

i=1

d

We will show that (i) (Fk , U1k , U2k )0 → N3 ((0, 0, 0)0 , I3 ) which is a trivariate multinormal distrid

bution where I3 is a 3 × 3 identity matrix and (ii) (Fk |U1k = 0,P
U2k = 0) → N (0, 1). The latter
case means that, under the condition of Uck = 0 (equivalently ki=1 Xci = nc ) for c = 1, 2, the
conditional distribution of Fk is the same as that of

Pk

i=1

f ∗ (N1i ,N2i )−||ξ||22
σk

+

Pk

i=1

G2i (N1i ,N2i )
σk

since

d

[(Xc1 , . . . , Xck )|Uck = 0] ≡ (Nc1 , . . . , Nck ). For the asymptotic normality of (Fk |U1k = 0, U2k = 0),
we need the uniform equicontinuity for the conditional central limit theorem as stated in Theorem 2.1 in Steck (1957). For the uniform equicontinuity in Steck (1957), we need to show that,
for bounded values |u1 | ≤ δ and |u2 | ≤ δ for some δ > 0 and h = max(h1 , h2 ), the conditional
characteristic function of Fk given U1k = u1 and U2k = u2 satisfies
lim sup

sup

h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ

|E(eitFk |Uk1 = u1 + h, Uk2 = u2 + h) − E(eitF |Uk1 = u1 , Uk2 = u2 )|

→ 0.
We will show the uniform equicontinuity of the characteristic function in Lemma 3.
From Theorem 2.1 in Steck (1957), the uniform equicontinuity of characteristic function of Fk
implies the conditional asymptotic normality of Fk given U1k = U2k = 0, i.e., Fk |U1k = 0, U2k =
d

0 → N (0, 1).
The following Lemmas, 2 and 3, will be used in showing the asymptotic multivariate normality
of (Fk , U1k , U2k ) and the uniform equicontinuity of the characteristic function of Fk conditioning
on U1k = 0 and U2k = 0.

7

In fact, the uniform equicontinuity of characteristic function becomes
lim sup

sup

h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ

|E(eitFk |Uk1 = u1 + h, Uk2 = u2 + h) − E(eitF |Uk1 = u1 , Uk2 = u2 )|

!
k
t X
≤ lim sup
sup
E exp i
(fi (L1i + M1i , L2i + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i ))
h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ
σk
i=1

k
X

|t|
E
(fi (L1i + M1i , L2i + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i ))
h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ σk
i=1

!2 1/2
k
2
X
t
 E
≤ lim sup
sup
(fi (L1i + M1i , L2i + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i )) 
h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ
σk2
i=1
≤ lim sup

sup

and it is sufficient to show that the last expression converges to 0.
Lemma 2. When X1i and X2i for 1 ≤ i ≤ k are independent Poisson random variables with means
λ1i = n1 p1i and λ2i = n2 p2i , respectively, then
1. Efi (X1i , X2i ) = 0.
P
P
2. Cov( ki=1 fi (X1i , X2i ), ki=1 Xci ) = 0 for c = 1, 2.
P
P
P 
3. V ar( ki=1 fi (X1i , X2i )) = ki=1 V ar(fi (X1i , X2i )) = 2 ki=1 pn1i1 +

p2i
n2

2

.

Proof. See Supplementary material.
P
The following lemma ensures that the convergence of characteristic function of ki=1 f (X1i , X2i )
Pk
Pk
based on independent Poisson distributions conditioning on i=1 X1i and i=1 X2i which come
from multinomial distributions.
Lemma 3. When Lck = (Lc1 , ..., Lck ) and Mck = (Mc1 , ..., Mck ) are independent multinomial
1/2
1/2
vectors for c = 1, 2 with L(Lck ) = M(Pc , k, nc + uc nc ) and L(Mck ) = M(Pc , k, hc nc ). hc and
1/2
1/2
uc are such that lc = nc + uc nc and mc = hc nc are nonnegative integers and uc is bounded
(say |uc | ≤ δ for some constant δ, c = 1, 2)as k → ∞. Under the conditions in Theorem 1, for
h = max(h1 , h2 ), we have

!2 
k
1  X
lim sup
sup
fi (L1i + M1i , L2i + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i )  = 0.
(17)
2E
h→0 k |u1 |≤δ,|u2 |≤δ σk
i=1
Proof. See supplementary material.
The following lemma shows that
independent poisson distributions.

Pk

i=1 f (X1i , X2i )

has the asymptotic normality when Xci s are

Lemma 4. When X1i and X2i for 1 ≤ i ≤ k are independent Poisson random variables with means
λ1i = n1 p1i and λ2i = n2 p2i , respectively, then
Pk

i=1 f (X1i , X2i ) d

→ N (0, 1).

σk
8

(18)

Proof. See the Supplementary material.
Based on the lemmas, we prove Theorem 1. In fact, Theorem 1 is the case when independent
poisson random variables Xci s in Lemma 4 can be replaced by the multinomial distributions Nci s.
Pk

f (X ,X )

d

Proof of Theorem 1 : Lemma 4 shows Fk = i=1 iσk 1i 2i → N (0, 1). We also have Uck =
Pk
4
Pk
d
i=1 E(Xci −λci )
√1
Pk
(X
−
λ
)
→
N
(0,
1)
for
c
=
1,
2
from
the
Lyapounov’
condition
:
=
ci
ci
2
i=1
nc
(

3

Pk

Pk
2
i=1 λi + i=1 λi
Pk
( i=1 λ2i )

=

n2

Pk3

i=1

p2ci

+

3
P
n3 ( p2 )

i=1

λi )

→ 0 from the condition 3 in Theorem 1. Using Lemma 2

ci

Pk

f (X ,X )

and independence of X1 and X2 , we have the result that i=1 σk 1i 2i , U1k and U2k are uncorrelated to each other. Therefore, using Lemma 2.1 in Morris (1975), we have tri-variate asymptotic
d

normality of (Fk , U1k , U2k ), i.e., (Fk , U1k , U2k )0 → N3 ((0, 0, 0)0 , I3 ) where I3 is a 3 × 3 identity matrix. Lemma 3 shows the uniform equicontinuity of conditional characteristic function of Fk given
d
U1k and U2k , so we have (Fk |U1k = U2k = 0) → N (0, 1), in other words
d

Pk

i=1 fi (N1i , N2i ) d

(Fk |U1k = U2k = 0) ≡

→ N (0, 1).

σk

Pk
f ∗ (N1i ,N2i )−||ξ||22
i=1 G1i (N1i ,N2i )
=
=
σk
σk
Pk
p
G
(N
,N
)
2i
1i
2i
to show i=1 σk
→ 0 to have the
Pk
enough to show V ar( i=1 G2i (N1i , N2i )) =

From (15), conditioning on U1i = U2k = 0, we have
Pk

i=1

fi (N1i ,N2i )
σk

−

Pk

G2i (N1i ,N2i )
. From (19), we only
σk
Pk
G
(N
,N )
1i
of i=1 σk 1i 2i . For this, it is


i=1

asymptotic normality
P
k
o(σk2 ) since E
i=1 G2i (N1i , N2i )
−nc pci pcj for c = 1, 2, we have

(19)

Pk

i=1

= 0. Using V ar(Nci ) = nc pci (1 − pci ) and Cov(Nci , Nci ) =


 X


k
k
X
X
p2i p2j
p1i p1j
p2i (1 − p2i )
2 p1i (1 − p1i )
V ar(
G2i (N1i , N2i )) =
ξi
+
+
−
ξi ξj
n1
n2
n1
n2
i=1

i=1

=

k
X

i6=j

ξi2



i=1

p1i p2i
+
n1
n2





2 X
k
k
X
X
p2i
2
2 p1i
−
(
ξi pci ) ≤
ξi
+
n1
n2
c=1 i=1

i=1

P
P
P
where the last equality is due to ( i6=j ξi ξj pci pcj ) = ( ki=1 ξi pci )2 − ki=1 ξi2 p2ci for c = 1, 2. Since



Pk
||P1 +P2 ||2
2 p1i + p2i
||P1 + P2 ||2 = o(σk2 ) where
≤ O n1 ||ξ||22 (maxi p1i + maxi p2i ) ≤
ξ
i=1 i
n1
n2
n2
the last equation is from the condition 4 in Theorem 1, maxi pci = o(||P1 + P2 ||2 ) and σk2 
P
n−2 ||P1 + P2 ||22 . Therefore, using (19) and V ar( ki=1 G2i (N1i , N2i )) = o(σk2 ), we have
Pk

i=1 f

∗ (N , N )
1i
2i

σk

− ||ξ||2

Pk
=

i=1 fi (N1i , N2i )

σk

9

Pk
−

i=1 G2i (N1i , N2i ) d

σk

→ N (0, 1)

5

Neighborhood Test

In Corollary 2, we presented the closed form asymptotic power of the proposed test. From the
closed form of asymptotic power in Corollary 1, we may expect additional applications. In this
section, we present one application based on the closed form of asymptotic power of T in Corollary
1.
In testing the equality of parameters from two populations, it frequently happens that the null
hypothesis is rejected even though the estimates of effect sizes are close to each other, however,
these differences are so small that parameters may not be considered to be different in practice.
Another issue is that although the use of p-values is a common measure to draw a conclusion about
the population, one may be interested in the measure of indifference or inhomogeneity regarding the
original effect sizes based on P1 and P2 . As related work, see Solo (1984), Berger and Delampady
(1987), Berger and Sellke (1987), Dette and Munk (1998), Munk et al. (2008) and Choi and Park
(2014). In particular, Munk et al. (2008) called this type of testing problem a neighborhood
test. With these motivations, instead of testing the exact equality such as H0 : P1 = P2 , we
consider more flexible null hypothesis, which allows a predetermined level of difference such as
Nδ = {(P1 , P2 ) : d(P1 , P2 ) ≤ δ}. Here, d is a function satisfying d(P1 , P2 ) = 0 under P1 = P2 . In
general, when considering Nδ as a null space for equivalence of P1 and P2 , there is an important
issue in the determination of the rejection region for a given neighborhood to have a size α test for
a given α. That is, for a given test T , we need to find out C satisfying
sup
(P1 ,P2 )∈Nδ

P(P1 ,P2 ) (T > C) = α.

(20)

Choi and Park (2014) discussed testing non-equivalence of normal mean values and found the
least favorable parameters for different types of null hypotheses. Munk et al. (2008) considered a
noncentral chi-square distribution in a neighborhood test for functional data analysis. In our case,
we consider a testing problem based on SNR (signal to noise ratio) which influences the effect size
in the two sample test as follows:


||P1 − P2 ||22
Nδ = (P1 , P2 ) :
≤δ .
(21)
σk
Note that δ = 0 implies H0 : P1 = P2 . We test
H0,δ : (P1 , P2 ) ∈ Nδ vs. H1 : (P1 , P2 ) ∈
/ Nδ

(22)

When Nδ in (21) is given, the power function of T in Corollary 2 gives some insight into the rejection
region for a given size α. For a given α, the goal is to identify C satisfying
lim

sup

n1 ,n2 →∞ (P ,P )∈N
1
2
δ

P(P1 ,P2 ) (T > C) = α
||P1 −P2 ||22
σk

for T . The supremum occurs when C = z1−α − δ and
function of T . The asymptotic p-value is


D
pδ = Φ̄
−δ
σ̂k
10

(23)

= δ from the asymptotic power

where Φ̄(x) = P (Z > z) and Z has a standard normal distribution. Since pδ is a monotone
increasing function of δ, we have pδ → 1 as δ increases. When the p-value from testing H0 : P1 = P2
is almost 0, we can obtain some δ ∗ (α) for a given α satisfying
δ ∗ (α) = min{δ : pδ ≥ α}.

(24)

δ>0

In Munk et al. (2008), δ ∗ (α) is called the size of the test for a given α and can be presented as
a measure of indifference of P1 and P2 instead of a p-value from testing H0 : P1 = P2 . Park et
al. (2015) and Choi and Park (2014) investigated the behavior of δ ∗ (α) for different problems of
testing normal means.
We apply this neighborhood test to a real data example in section 7.

6

Simulations

In this section, we provide numerical studies to compare the proposed test (T ) with existing tests
such as the test in (3) and the test (BS-test) in Bai and Saranadasa (1996).
Throughout all following simulations, we repeat 104 simulations to compute each of empirical
sizes or powers. We first investigate the sizes of three tests when k is larger than sample sizes.
We consider two types of scenario: (i) k increases when the ratio of the dimension and sample
sizes is 10, i.e., k/nc = 10. In these cases, the sample sizes also increase as k increases. As the
configurations of P1 = P2 , we use two cases: (i) p1i = p2i =

1
γ

Pki

1
i=1 iγ

for γ = 0.45 (ii) p1i = p2i = k1 .

(ii) k increase when sample sizes are fixed such as n1 = n2 = 103 . In these cases, data are getting
more sparse as k increases.
Tables 1 and 2 show (i) and (ii), respectively. As displayed in Tables 1 and 2, we see that the
proposed test(T ) and Zelterman’s test control the nominal level of size (0.05) reasonably, however
BS-test fails in controlling the nominal level since the BS-test always achieves inflated sizes up to
10%.
P
p1i = p2i = 1/k
p1i = p2i = 1/i0.45 / ki=1 1/i0.45
k
T
BS
Zel
k
T
BS
Zel
103 0.051 0.100
0.052
103 0.054 0.116 0.060
104 0.065 0.100
0.064
104 0.046 0.086 0.051
4
2 × 10
0.051 0.076
0.048 2 × 104 0.049 0.084 0.053
3 × 104 0.057 0.085
0.057 3 × 104 0.038 0.064 0.040
5
10
0.058 0.086
0.046
105 0.052 0.089 0.052
Table 1: Empirical sizes of tests when the nominal level is 0.05 and k/nc = 10 for
c = 1, 2.
We now consider powers of three tests. Our simulation set up is as follows.
• Experiment 1: p1i =

1/iγ
Pk
γ
i=1 1/i

for γ = 0.45. The probability vector for the 2nd group was

generated by switching the position of 1st and mth entries, i.e., p2,1 = p1,m , p2,m = p1,1 and
p1i = p2i for all i 6= 1, m.

11

p1i = p2i
k
103
104
2 × 104
3 × 104
105

P
= 1/i0.45 / ki=1 1/i0.45
T
BS
Zel
0.041 0.079
0.052
0.052 0.094
0.053
0.059 0.103
0.062
0.050 0.093
0.049
0.037 0.093
0.038

p1i = p2i
k
T
103 0.049
104 0.046
2 × 104 0.064
3 × 104 0.056
105 0.040

= 1/k
BS
0.079
0.075
0.102
0.092
0.071

Zel
0.050
0.046
0.059
0.057
0.038

Table 2: Empirical sizes of tests when the nominal level is 0.05 and sample sizes are
fixed, n1 = n2 = 103 .
• Experiment 2: p1i = 1/k for 1 ≤ i ≤ k, p2i = 0 for i ∈ [1, b], p2,b+1 =
p2i = 1/k for i ∈ [b + 2, k] for different values of b.

Pb+1
i=1

p1i =

b+1
k ,

• Experiment 3: p1i = 1/k, p2i = 0 for i ∈ [1, b] and p2i = 1/(k − b) for i > b for different
values of b.
For each experiment, we consider two configurations of sample sizes and dimensions: (n1 , n2 , k) =
(500, 500, 103 ) and (2000, 2000, 104 ).
n1 = n2 = 500, k = 103
m
T
BS
Zel
1(H0 ) 0.042 0.067 0.041
2 0.068 0.105 0.058
10 0.161 0.202 0.075
100 0.292 0.364 0.135
1000 0.363 0.444 0.153

n1 = n2 = 2000, k = 104
m
T
BS
Zel
1 (H0 ) 0.056 0.087 0.056
10 0.133 0.183 0.070
102 0.282 0.344 0.102
103 0.327 0.389 0.103
104 0.347 0.410 0.114

Table 3: Experiment 1. m = 1 implies H0 .
n1
b
0
10
20
25
30

= n2 = 500, k = 103
T
BS
Zel
0.033 0.076 0.041
0.183 0.248 0.103
0.588 0.652 0.146
0.779 0.829 0.193
0.915 0.937 0.255

n1 = n2 = 2, 000, k
b
T
BS
0 0.061 0.093
20 0.092 0.141
50 0.493 0.565
70 0.811 0.851
100 0.978 0.985

= 104
Zel
0.061
0.064
0.108
0.153
0.210

Table 4: Experiment 2. b = 0 implies H0 .
Note that for the null hypothesis, we use p1i s described in Experiments 1-3. Additionally, we
use p2i s in Experiments 1-3 for the alternative.
Experiment 1 shows that the probabilities, p1i s, are decreasing in i which is the case that some
cells have large counts and others have sparse counts. For the situation of H1 , only two entries
(1st and mth in P2 ) are changed to have different probability vector from P1 . As m increases, the
inhomogeneity of two groups also increases, which leads to larger powers of tests. On the other
12

n1
b
0
100
200
300
400

= n2 = 500, k = 103
T
BS
Zel
0.033 0.076 0.041
0.142 0.212 0.152
0.363 0.469 0.429
0.700 0.791 0.784
0.962 0.979 0.981

n1 = n2 = 2, 000, k = 104
b
T
BS
Zel
0 0.061 0.093 0.061
1000 0.171 0.259 0.186
2000 0.483 0.587 0.531
3000 0.890 0.935 0.912
4000 0.998 0.999 0.998

Table 5: Experiment 3. b = 0 implies H0 .
hand, in Experiments 2 and 3, p1i s all have equal probability 1/k. For the H1 , Experiments 2 and
3 use different configurations of P2 . For example, p2,b+1 in Experiment 2 has very spiky values as
b increases while Experiment 3 p2i s have all the same values for i > b.
Tables ?? and ?? provide the results of Experiment 1 and 2 showing that T have significant advantage over Zelterman’s test in power while the BS test tends to have larger sizes than the nominal
level .05 as also shown in Tables 1 and 2. For Experiment 3, Table ?? shows that Zelterman’s test
seems to have slightly higher powers than the proposed test. The BS test has the highest powers
among three tests, however the BS test has inflated sizes which lead to higher powers.
We additionally consider the following simulations for powers. Experiment 4 and 5 use the cases
that sample sizes (nc for c = 1, 2) are four times the dimension (4 × k) and k increases from 103 to
105 . Note that sample sizes also increase at the linear rate of k.
• Experiment 4: p1i = 1/k, p2i = 0 for i ∈ [1, b] and p2i = 1/(k − b) for i > b. Here we used
b = 50 and nc = 4k for c = 1, 2.
• Experiment 5 : p1i =
2nd

1/iγ
Pk
,
γ
i=1 1/i

where γ = 0.45. nc = 4k for c = 1, 2. The probability

vector for the
group was generated by copying the probability vector of the 1st group and
then switching the 1st and 5th entries of that vector. nc = 4k for c = 1, 2.
Table 6 shows the powers of three tests for Experiment 4 and 5. In Experiment 4, all three tests
decrease as k increases. We can see that the Zelterman’s test has the highest powers in Experiment
4. The BS test has the slightly higher powers than the proposed test, however this is due to the
tendency that the BS test has inflate sizes. On the other hand, in Experiment 5, the proposed
test and the BS test tend to have increasing powers as k increases while the Zelterman’s test has
decreasing pattern of powers. The BS test still has slightly more powers than the proposed test,
but this is also due to inflated sizes of the BS test.
k
100
1000
2000
3000
10000

Experiment 4
T
BS
1.000 1.000
0.736 0.810
0.481 0.571
0.364 0.454
0.176 0.240

Zel
1.000
0.983
0.834
0.681
0.317

k
100
1000
2000
3000
10000

Experiment 5
T
BS
0.377 0.464
0.761 0.812
0.876 0.908
0.938 0.956
0.996 0.997

Table 6: Powers from Experiment 4 and 5.

13

Zel
0.145
0.120
0.112
0.112
0.108

Lastly, we consider two more experiments, Experiment 6 and 7. The dimension k is more than
the sample sizes such as k = 4nc and n1 = n2 .
• Experiment 6: p1i = 1/k, p2i = 0 for i ∈ [1, b] and p2i = 1/(k − b) for i > b. Here we used
b = 500 and k = 4nc for c = 1, 2.
• Experiment 7: p1i =

1/iγ
Pk
,
γ
i=1 1/i

where γ = 0.45. k = 4nc for c = 1, 2. The probability vector

for the 2nd group was generated by copying the probability vector of the 1st group and then
switching the 1st and 500th entries of that vector.
Table 7 shows the results of Experiment 6 and 7. We see similar results to Experiment 4 and 5.
In particular, Experiments 5 and 7, the Zelterman’s test has drawback in obtaining powers while
the proposed test and the BS test have increasing power as k increases.

k
1000
2000
3000
10000

Experiment 6
T
BS
0.787 0.868
0.346 0.451
0.240 0.328
0.109 0.164

Zel
0.827
0.371
0.260
0.116

k
1000
2000
3000
10000

Experiment 7
T
BS
0.175 0.247
0.210 0.279
0.249 0.326
0.389 0.472

Zel
0.111
0.110
0.110
0.109

Table 7: Powers from Experiment 6 and 7.
In Experiment 5 and 7, the increasing pattern of powers of the proposed test can be explained
through our result in Corollary 2. For given probabilities in Experiment 5 and 7, n and k have linear
relationships and P2 is obtained by switching two components in P1 , so we obtain the following
result; for given m such that p21 = p1m , p2m = p1m and p1i = p2i for i 6= 1, m, then we have
||P1 − P2 ||22 = (p11 − p21 )2 + (p1m − p2m )2  k 2−2γ
k 1−2γ
σk2  n−2 ( 2−2γ + n−1 )  k −3
k
which leads to
1
||P1 − P2 ||22
k −2+2γ
 −3/2 = k − 2 +2γ .
σk
k

||P −P ||2

1

1
2 2
 k − 2 +2γ → ∞ which results in the convergence of power
For 1/4 < γ < 1/2, we have
σk
of T and T 0 to 1. Since γ = 0.45 > 1/4, the powers of T and T 0 are increasing to 1 as k increases.
If γ = 1/4, then we have 0 < limk P (T > z1−α ) ≤ lim supk P (T > z1−α ) < 1; if 0 ≤ γ < 41 , we
have P (T > z1−α ) & α, decreasing to the nominal Type I error α from Corollary 2. On the other
hand, there is no study on the asymptotic power function in Zelterman (1987), so it is not easy
to investigate the behavior of power of the Zetlerman’s test analytically. Our simulation studies in
Experiment 5 and 7 show that the Zetlerman’s test has decreasing pattern of powers as k increases
while the proposed test and the BS test have increasing patterns of powers.
To summarize, the proposed test and Zelterman’s test control a given level of size while the
BS test tends to have inflated sizes which is the critical drawback of the BS test. The BS test has

14

the highest powers all situations, however such high powers are not reliable due to inflated sizes.
The Zelterman’s test have slightly more advantage over the proposed test in powers in some cases
(Experiment 3); otherwise our proposed test has significantly more powers than the Zelterman’s
test from our simulation studies. Overall, the proposed test is reliable in controlling the nominal
level of size and obtaining reasonable powers while Zelterman’s test and the BS test has drawback
in either controlling the nominal level of size or obtaining powers.

7

Real Example: 20 Newsgroups

Next we’ll illustrate the use of the proposed neighborhood test using our statistic T and the popular 20 newsgroups dataset. This dataset, originally assembled by Ken Lang, consists of 20,000
documents each of which comes from one of 20 different newsgroups. We used the training set
available at http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/.
We compared the group rec.sports.baseball with sci.med to test the null hypothesis that the 2
groups of documents come from the same newsgroup. The ith entry of the data vector contains the
count of the ith dictionary word seen in the set of documents, where the dictionary is composed of
all unique words seen in both sets of documents. We compose such a vector for each of the two
groups. For testing H0 : P1 = P2 , we observe that p-values from all tests described in this paper
are almost 0, therefore two groups are obviously different. In such a case, we consider neighborhood
test based on T as discussed in section 5 since T has the closed form of power function in Corollary
1. In the provided data set, each group consisted of 594 documents. For each of 100 replications we
sampled documents to calculate the power and size. To obtain power, we sampled 50 documents
from each group (and subsequently 100 and 200 documents as additional experiments). For size
of test, we sampled two groups of 50 documents from the same group (and subsequently 100 and
200 documents as additional experiments). The dimension, 16,214, was defined by the the set of
unique words found in the two groups being compared. The results are shown in figure 1 where we
show δ vs pδ for both power and size. The three plot show three different sample sizes (50, 100,
and 200 sampled documents per group). Notice that the null and alternative hypotheses become
more separable as the number of documents increases.

8

Concluding Remaks

In this paper we developed new statistics for testing the homogeneity of two probability vectors
from two multinomial distributions and showed the asymptotic normality of the proposed tests
under some regularity conditions. Through simulations we showed that our proposed test statistic
performs very well (i.e. have high power while controlling size) especially for situations where the
data is sparse. In some cases the power of our new statistic was 3-4 times that of some existing test.
In Experiment 5 and 7 of the simulation studies we even saw that the power of our proposed test
increased as dimension increased, while the power of the other method remained low. Additionally,
using the power function of our proposed test, we discussed the use of a neighborhood test with
our statistic as a means to make the test less sensitive to insignificant differences between the two
groups. We applied this neighborhood test to the popular 20 newsgroups data set to show that
our test is effective in testing the null hypothesis that the groups of documents are from the same
newsgroup.

15

Figure 1: P -value curve for various values of δ. 50, 100 and 200 documents chosen per
group.

References
[1] Anderson, D. A., McDonald, L. L., and Weaver, K. D. Tests on categorical data from the
union-intersection principle. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 26, 203-213.
[2] Bai, Z., and Saranadasa, H. (1996). Effect of high dimension: By an example of a two sample
problem. Statistica Sinica, 6, 311-329.
[3] Berger, J., and Delampady, M. (1987). Testing precise hypotheses. Statistical Science 2, 317-352.
[4] Berger, J. and Sellke, T. (1987). Testing a point null hypothesis: irreconcilability of p-values
and evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 112-122.
[5] Chen, S.X. and Qin, Y. L. (2010). A two sample test for high dimensional data with applications
to gene-set testing, Annals of Statistics, 38, 808-835.
[6] Choi, S. and Park, J. (2014). Plug-in tests for nonequivalence of means of independent normal
populations. Biometrical Journal 56, 1016-1034.
[7] Cressie, N. and Read, T.R.C. (1984). Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests. J. Roy. Statist.Soc. Ser.
B. 46, 440-464.
[8] Dette, H., and Munk, A. (1998). Validation of linear regression models. Annals of Statistics 26,
778-800.

16

[9] Haldane, J. (1940). The mean and variance of χ2 , when used as a test of homogeneity, when
expectations are small. Biometrika, 31, 346-355.
[10] Hodges, J. L., and Lehmann, E. L. (1954). Testing the approximate validity of statistical
hypotheses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 16, 261-268. 114
[11] Kim, S.-H., Choi, H. and Lee, S. (2009). Estimate-based goodness-of-fit test for large sparse
multinomial distributions. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53, 1122-1131.
[12] Morris, C.(1975). Central limit theorems for multinomial sums. The Annals of Statistics 3,
165188.
[13] Munk, A.; Paige, R., Pang, J., Patrangenaru, V. and Ruymgaat, F. (2008). The one- and
multi-sample problem for functional data with application to projective shape analysis. Journal
of Multivariate Analysis 99, 815-833.
[14] Newcomer, J. T., Neerchal, N. K. and Morel, J. G. (2008). Calculation of higher order moments from two multinomial overdispersion likelihood models. Technical report, Department of
Statistics, University of Maryland Baltimore County.
[15] Park, J. and Ayyala, D. N. (2013). A test for the mean vector in large dimension and small
samples, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 143,929-943.
[16] Park, J., Sinha, B., Shah, A., Xu, D. and Lin, J. (2015) Likelihood ratio tests for interval
hypotheses with applications, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 44, 2351-2370.
[17] Solo, V. (1984). An alternative to significance tests. Technical Report 84-14, Department of
Statistics, Purdue University, IN.
[18] Srivastava, M. (2009). A test for the mean vector with fewer observations than the dimension
under non-normality. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100, 518-532.
[19] Srivastava, M.S. and Du, M. (2008). A test for the mean vector with fewer observations than
the dimension Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 99,386402.
[20] Srivastava, M., Katayama, S. and Kano, Y. (2013). A two sample test in high dimensional
data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 114, 349-835.
[21] Steck, G.P. (1957). Limit theorems for conditional distributions. Univ. California Publi. Statist.
2 No. 12, 237-284.
[22] Zelterman, D. (1987). Goodness of fit tests for large sparse multinomial distributions. Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 82, 624-629.

17

Appendix
A

Proof of Lemma 1

We show the ratio consistency of σ̂k2 . To show the ratio consistency of σ̂k2 , by using n1  n2 and
σk2  n−2 ||P1 + P2 ||22 , it is sufficient to show
σ̂k2 − σk2

σk2

Pk

2
i=1 (p̂1i

−

p̂1i
n1

− p21i )

||P1 + P2 ||22

Pk
Pk
p̂2i
2
2
p
p
p̂
p̂
−
i=1 (p̂2i − n2 − p2i )
1i
2i
1i
2i
i=1
i=1
+
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22

Pk
+

p

→ 0.

(25)


P 
P
We first show the ratio consistency of ki=1 p̂21i − p̂n1i1 for ki=1 p21i . The case of the 2nd group

P 
P
1i )
= (1 −
( ki=1 p̂21i − p̂n1i1 for ki=1 p21i ) can be proved similarly. Since E(p̂21i ) = p21i + p1i (1−p
n1


p1i
p̂1i
N1i
n1
1
2
2
2
n1 )p1i + n1 where p̂1i = n1 , we have E n1 −1 (p̂1i − n1 ) = p1i . Thus we consider the following
Pk

n1
2
i=1 p1i : n1 −1

Pk

2
i=1 (p̂1i

p̂1i
n1 ).

n1
n1 −1

p̂1i
2
i=1 (p̂1i − n1 )−
||P1 +P2 ||22

Pk

Pk

i=1

p21i

p

→ 0, we
−
unbiased estimator of
To show
will show that the following quantity converges to 0 as follows:

2 


Pk
Pk
p̂1i
P
n1
2
2
1
E ( n1 −1 ) i=1 (p̂1i − n1 ) − i=1 p1i
V ar ( n1n−1
) ki=1 (p̂21i − p̂n1i1 )
=
||P1 + P2 ||42
||P1 + P2 ||42
!
k
k
X
X
8
p̂1i
8
2
≤
V
ar(
p̂
)
+
V
ar(
) =
(26)
1i
4 ((I) + (II))
n
||P1 + P2 ||42
||P
+
P
||
1
2
2
i=1
i=1
where the last inequality in (26) is from V ar(X + Y ) ≤ 2(V ar(X) + V ar(Y )) and n1 /(n1 − 1) ≤ 2.
We decompose (I) into two parts:
(I) = V ar(

k
X

p̂21i ) =

i=1

k
X

V ar(p̂21i ) +

i=1

X

Cov(p̂21i , p̂21j ) = (A) + (B).

i6=j

Using the results in Lemma.S2 in Supplementary material, for some constants C1 and C2 , we have
(A) =

k
X

E(p̂41i )

−

(E(p̂21i ))2



≤ C1

i=1

|(B)| =

X

k  4
X
p

p3
p2
p1i
+ 1i + 1i2 + 3
n1
n1
n1
n1
1i

i=1

E(p̂21i p̂21j ) − E(p̂21i )E(p̂21j )



≤ C2

i6=j

i6=j

that

→ 0 since

maxi p2ci
||P1 +P2 ||22

≤

p21i p21j
p1i p21j
p1i p1j
p2 p1j
+ 1i 2 +
+
2
n1
n1
n1
n31

!
.

(A)
→ 0 and ||P (B)
4 → 0 as follows: first,
||P1 +P2 ||42
1 +P2 ||2
maxi pci
→ 0 from the condition 2 in Theorem 1. For
||Pc ||22

For all the terms in the above, we can show
maxi p2ci
||P1 +P2 ||22

X



18

note
(A),

using maxi p21i ≤ maxi p1i → 0 in the result 2 in Lemma.S2 in the Supplementary material, we have
P
maxi p21i ki=1 p21i
maxi p21i
≤
=
→ 0,
4
4
n||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||22
Pk
P
3
maxi p1i ki=1 p21i
maxi p1i
i=1 p1i
≤
=
→ 0,
4
4
n1
n||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2
Pk
Pk
2
1
1
i=1 p1i
i=1 p1i
≤
≤
→0
→ 0,
4
4
2
2
3
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 (n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2 )
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 (n1 ||P1 + P2 ||22 )2
Pk

4
i=1 p1i

where the condition
3 (n||P1 +P2 ||22 ≥  > P
0) and n1  n2Pare used in the last steps as n1 → ∞. For
P
2
(B), using i6=j p1i p21j ≤ ||P1 + P2 ||22 and i6=j p1i p1j ≤ ki=1 p1i = 1, we have from the conditions
1-3 in Theorem 1
P
P
2 2
2
1
i6=j p1i p1j
i6=j p1i p1j
≤
→
0,
→ 0,
n1
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||42
n21 ||P1 + P2 ||42
P
2
||P1 + P2 ||22
1
i6=j p1i p1j
≤ 2
≤
→ 0,
2
4
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||2
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||42
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||22
P
1
i6=j p1i p1j
→ 0.
≤
3
n1 ||P1 + P2 ||42
n1 (n1 ||P1 + P2 ||22 )2
Similarly, for (II), we have
k
k
X
X
p̂1i
1 X
p̂1i
(II) = V ar(
)=
Cov(p̂1i , p̂1j )
V ar( ) + 2
n
n1
n1
i=1 1
i=1
i6=j

=

k
X
p1i (1 − p1i )

n31

i=1

Therefore, we have

(II)
n31 ||P1 +P2 ||42

≤

1
n31 ||P1 +P2 ||42

Pk

2
i=1 (p̂1i

−

−

X p1i p1j
n31

i6=j

≤

k
X
p1i

n3
i=1 1

=

1
.
n31

→ 0 which leads

p̂1i
n1 )

−

Pk

2
i=1 p1i

p

→ 0.
||P1 + P2 ||22

P 
The ratio consistent estimator of ki=1 p̂22i − p̂n2i2 can be also proved in the same way.

19

(27)

For

Pk

i=1 p̂1i p̂2i ,

we show

Pk
P
P
E(( ki=1 p̂1i p̂2i )2 )
i=1 V ar(N1i N2i ) +
i6=j Cov(N1i N2i , N1j N2j )
=
4
||P1 + P2 ||2
||P1 + P2 ||42
Pk
P
k
2
2
1
i=1 p1i p2i
i=1 p1i p2i

+
+ 2
4
4
n||P1 + P2 ||2 n||P1 + P2 ||2 n ||P1 + P2 ||22
P
i6=j p1i p2i p1j p2j
−
n||P1 + P2 ||42
Pk
2
maxi p1i
maxi p2i
i=1 p1i p2i

+
+
n||P1 + P2 ||22 n||P1 + P2 ||22 n||P1 + P2 ||42
(P1 · P2 )2
1
−
→0
+ 2
n ||P1 + P2 ||22 n||P1 + P2 ||42
2

||P +P ||2

(P1 ·P2 )
1
2 2
where the last term converges to 0 since n||P
4 ≤ 2n||P +P ||4 =
1 +P2 ||2
1
2 2
condition 3 in Theorem 1. Therefore
Pk
Pk
i=1 p1i p2i p
i=1 p̂1i p̂2i −
→0
||P1 + P2 ||22

1
2n||P1 +P2 ||22

→ 0 from the

Combining (27) and (28), we have (25) which leads to the ratio consistency of σ̂k2 .

20

(28)

Supplementary Material
B

Supplementary Lemmas

Lemma.S1
If conditions 1-4 in Theorem 1 are satisfied, we have the following results.
1. max1≤i≤k pci → 0 for c = 1, 2.
2.

max1≤i≤k p1i p2i
||P1 +P2 ||22

→ 0.

3. n||ξ ∗ (P1 + P2 )||22 = O(||P1 + P2 ||42 ).
4. |ξ| · (P1 + P2 ) = O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ).
5. n(|ξ| · P1 )(|ξ| · P2 ) = O(||P1 + P2 ||42 ).
6. n(|ξ| · (P1 + P2 ))2 = O(||P1 + P2 ||42 ).
√
√
√
7. n||ξ ∗ ( P1 + P1 )||22 = √1n O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ).
Proof.

1. Result 1 can be shown by contradiction. Assume

maxi p2ci
||Pc ||22

→ 0 holds but max1≤i≤k pci 9

{k10 , k20 , . . . , }

0 as k → ∞. Then, there exist a subsequence
⊂ {1, 2, . . . , } such that max1≤i≤kn0 pci >
P
max1≤i≤k0 p2ci
k
n
 for some  > 0. Since ||Pc ||22 = i=1 p2ci ≤ 1 from p2ci ≤ pci , we have
≥ 2
||P ||2
kn0

for the sequence
max1≤i≤k pci → 0.
2. From

||P1 ||22 +||P2 ||22

→ ∞. This is a contradiction to

≥ 2||P1 ||2 ||P2 ||2 , we have

maxi p2ci
||Pc ||22

max1≤i≤k p1i p2i
||P1 +P2 ||22

≤

c 2

→ 0. Therefore, we have

1 maxi p1i maxi p2i
2 ||P1 ||2 ||P2 ||2

≤

C
2

r

max1≤i≤k p21i
||P1 ||22

0 from 1 in this Lemma.
3. n||ξ ∗ (P1 + P2 )||22 ≤ n||ξ||22 ||P1 + P2 ||22 = O(||P1 + P2 ||42 ) where the last equality is from the
condition 4 in Theorem 1.
P
P
4. |ξ| · (P1 + P2 ) = ki=1 |p1i − p2i |(p1i + p2i ) ≤ ki=1 (p1i + p2i )2 = ||P1 + P2 ||22 .
5. By Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have n(|ξ| · P1 )(|ξ| · P2 ) ≤ n||ξ||22 ||P1 ||2 ||P2 ||2 = O(||P1 +
P2 ||42 ).
6. Using Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, |ξ| · (P1 + P2 ) ≤ ||ξ||22 ||P1 + P2 ||22 = O(||P1 + P2 ||42 ) =
O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ).
√
√
P
√
√
7. n||ξ ∗ ( P1 + P2 )||22 ≤ n = ||ξ||22 ( ki=1 (p1i + p2i ))2 = √1n O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ) from the
condition 4 in Theorem 1.
The following higher order moments of the multinomial distribution are given by Newcomer et
al. (2008). Lemma.S2 Let (N1 , N2 , ..., Nk ) be a k-dimensional multinomial random variable with
parameters p = (p1 , p2 , ..., pk ) and sample size n. Also let x(a) = x(x − 1)...(x − a + 1). Then we
have the following moments:
21

r

max1≤i≤k p
||P2 ||22

1. E(Ni ) = npi
2. E(Ni Nj ) = n(2) pi pj , ∀i 6= j.
3. E(Ni2 ) = n(2) p2i + npi .
4. E(Ni2 Nj ) = n(3) p2i pj + n(2) pi pj , ∀i 6= j.
5. E(Ni3 ) = n(3) p3i + 3n(2) p2i + npi = O(n3 p3i + npi ).
6. E(Ni2 Nj2 ) = n(4) p2i p2j + 3n(3) (p2i pj + pi p2j ) + n(2) pi pj = O(n4 p2i p2j + n2 pi pj ), ∀i 6= j.
7. E(Ni4 ) = n(4) p4i + 6n(3) p3i + 7n(2) p2i + npi = O(n4 p4i + npi ).

C

Proof of Lemma 2
1. When X1i and X2i are independent Poisson with P oisson(λ1i ) and P oisson(λ2 i) for λ1i =
n1 p1i and λ2i = n2 p2i , we have


X1i X2i
X1i X2i
X1i X2i 2
−
) − E( 2 + 2 ) − 2(p1i − p2i )E
−
+ (p1i − p2i )2
E(fi (X1i , X2i )) = E(
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2

 

λ1i λ2i
λ1i λ2i
λ1i λ2i 2
λ1i λ2i
λ1i λ2i 2
= 2 +
+
−
−
) +(
−
) =0
−
+
− 2(
2
n2
n1
n2
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n1
2. Using the independence of X1i and X2i , we have

Cov(fi (X1i , X2i ), X1i ) = Cov

X1i X2i
−
n1
n2

2

X1i X2i
− 2 − 2 − 2(p1i − p2i )
n1
n2



2
X1i
2X1i X2i X1i
X1i
−
− 2 − 2(p1i − p2i )
, X1i
2
n1 n2
n1
n1
n1
p1i p1i
−
− 2(p1i − p2i )p1i
= 2p1i (p1i − p2i ) +
n1
n1
= 0.



X1i X2i
−
n1
n2


!


, X1i

= Cov

(29)

To obtain (29), we use

Cov

X1i X2i
−
n1
n2

!

2
, X1i

= 2p1i (p1i − p2i ) +

p1i
n1

2
Cov(X1i
, X1i ) = 2n21 p21i + n1 p1i

Cov(X1i X2i , X1i ) = n1 n2 p1i p2i
Similarly, we also obtain Cov(fi (X1i , X2i ), X2i ) = 0.
3. Next we calculate s2i = V ar(fi (X1i , X2i )), which is needed for the calculation of σk2 =

22

Pk

2
i=1 si .

Let fi∗ (X1i , X2i ) =



X1i
n1

−

X2i
n2

∗

s2i

= V ar (f (X1i , X2i )) +

=2

p1i p2i
+
n1
n2

2

−

4ξi2 V

X1i
n21


ar

−

X2i
n22

and ξi = p1i − p2i , then

X1i X2i
+
n1
n2





X1i X2i
∗
− 4ξi Cov f (X1i , X2i ),
−
n1
n2

2

where
!



k 
k
X
X
p1i p2i 2
X1i X2i
p1i p2i
=2
V ar
+
+
(30)
− 2 − 2
+4
ξi2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2
i=1
i=1


p1i p2i
X1i X2i
+ 2
=
V ar
+
(31)
n1
n2
n21
n2





X1i X2i
p2i
∗
2 p1i
−4ξi Cov f (X1i , X2i ),
−
+
= −8ξi
.
(32)
n1
n2
n1
n2


X1i X2i
−
n1
n2

2

Pk  p1i p2i 2
2 = 2
s
. Additionally, since f (X1i , X2i ) = f ∗ (X1i , X2i )
i=1 n1 + n2
i=1 i
2
P 
P
under H0 , we have ki=1 V ar(f ∗ (X1i , X2i )) = 2 ki=1 pn1i1 + pn2i2
under H0 .
Therefore, σk2 =

D

Pk

Proof of Lemma 3

Let us first find fi (L1i + M1i , L2i + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i ) using the Taylor Series. The general form of
the Taylor expansion is:
fi (x + h1 , y + h2 ) − fi (x, y)
= fi,x (x, y)h1 + fi,y (x, y)h2 +

1
1
2
fi,xx (x, y)h21 + fi,yy (x, y)h22 + fi,xy (x, y)h1 h2
2!
2!
2!

∂
where fi,x = ∂x
f , fi,xx = ∂∂2 x f and others are similarly defined. Note that there is no remainder
term from Taylor expansion since fi is a quadratic function.
Using this formula and the definition of f given in (19), we have:

fi (L1i + M1i , L2 + M2i ) − fi (L1i , L2i )

 






L1i L2i
M1i M2i
M1i M2i 2
1
2(p1i − p2i )
1
2(p2i − p1i )
=2
−
−
+
−
−
+
M1i −
+
M2i
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n21
n22
|
{z
}|
{z
}
Qi

where Ai =



L1i
n1

−

L2i
n2



, Bi =

Ri



M1i
n1

−

M2i
n2



, Qi = 2Ai Bi + Bi2 and Ri = −

23



1
n21

+

2(p1i −p2i )
n1



M1i −



1
n22

+

1
E
σk2

2(p2i −p1i )
n2



M2i . We need to show

!2
k
k
k
X
1 X
1 X
2 X
1 X
1 X
E(Qi Qj ) + 2
E(Qi Rj ) + 2
E(Ri Rj )
(Qi + Ri )
= 2
E(Q2i ) + 2
E(Ri2 ) + 2
σk i=1
σk i=1
σk
σk
σk
i=1
i6=j
i6=j
i6=j
{z
} |
{z
} |
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
W1

W2

W3

W4

→ 0.
1. We show W1 =

1
E
σk2

Pk

2
i=1 Qi

→ 0.



E(Q2i ) = E (2Ai Bi + Bi2 )2 = 4 E(A2i ) E(Bi2 ) +4 E(Ai ) E(Bi3 ) + E(Bi4 ) .
| {z } | {z }
| {z } | {z } | {z }
(I)

(II)

(III)

(IV )

(V )

We’ll look at (I)-(V) separately below. Since L1i , L2i , M1i and M2i are independent, and
max1≤i≤k pci = o(1) for c = 1, 2, we have
"

 #
  

L1i L2i
L1i L2i 2
L1i L2i 2
= V ar
−
−
+ E
−
(I) = E
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2


 2

2
p1i p2i
p1i p2i
≤
+
(1 + o(1)) + 2v 2
+
n1
n2
n1
n2




p1i p2i
p1i + p2i
=O
+
=O
n1
n2
n
where o(·) and O(·) are uniform in i and the last equality is from n1 /n → C ∈ (0, 1). Similarly,
we obtain
"
 #


M1i M2i 2
p1i + p2i
(II) = E
−
(1 + o(1))
= hO
n1
n2
n3/2


L1i L2i
(III) = E
−
≤ |p1i − p2i | = |ξi |.
n1
n2
where o(·) is uniform in i. Using Jensen’s inequality, we have
"
 #
  3
 3 
 3

M1i M2i 3
M1i
M2i
p1i + p32i p1i + p2i
2
≤2 E
(IV ) = E
−
+E
= hO
+
n1
n2
n1.5
n2.5
n31
n32
"
 #
  4
 4 
 4

M1i
M1i M2i 4
M2i
p1i + p42i p1i + p2i
3
≤2 E
(V ) = E
−
+E
= hO
+
.
n1
n2
n2
n3.5
n41
n42
As the next step in showing that Equation (23) holds, we need to sum over k terms, divide
by σk2  n−2 ||P1 + P2 ||22 , and show convergence to 0.

24

W5

!
Pk
!
k
k  3.5
2
1.5 + p1.5 )ξ
X
1 X
p1i + p3.5
(p1i
i
2
2i
2i
i=1 (p1i + p2i )
+O
E(Qi ) = hO
2 + n||P + P ||2
σk2 i=1
||P
+
P
||
n1/2 ||P1 + P2 ||22
1
2
1
2 2
2
i=1




2
2
2
2
.5
||P1 ||1 + ||P2 ||2
(max p1i + max p.5
1.5
1.5 ||P1 ||1 + ||P2 ||2
2i )|ξ · (P1 + P2 )|
= hO
+ O (max p1i + max p2i )
+
||P1 + P2 ||22
n||P1 + P2 ||22
n1/2 ||P1 + P2 ||22
= o(1)
using |ξ · (P1 + P2 )| = O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ).
P
2. We show W2 = σ12 E( ki=1 Ri2 ) → 0. Let ξi = (p1i − p2i ) and define κ1i =
1
n21

+
have

2ξi
n1

k

and κ2i =

1
n22

−

2ξi
n2 .

1
a
n21

+

2(p1i −p2i )
n1

=

Then Ri = −κ1i M1i − κ2i M2i and using Jensen’s inequality we

h
i
2
2
E(Ri2 ) = E (κ1i M1i + κ2i M2i )2 ≤ 2κ21i E(M1i
) + 2κ22i E(M2i
)


h(p1i + p2i ) hξi2 (p1i + p2i ) h2 (p21i + p22i ) h2 ξi2 (p21i + p22i )
=O
+
+
+
n1
n3.5
n1.5
n31
1
1
Again, we need to sum over k terms and divide by σk2 and obtain
!
!
P
√ Pk
nh i=1 ξi2 (p1i + p2i )
h ki=1 (p1i + p2i )
+O
n1.5 ||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
!
P
 2

nh2 ki=1 ξi2 (p21i + p22i )
h (||P1 ||21 + ||P2 ||22 )
+O
+O
n||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
√
√

√


h
n||ξ ∗ ( P1 + P2 )||22
n||ξ ∗ (P1 + P2 )||22
h2
= o( √ ) + hO
+ O( ) + hO
n
n
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
= o(h) + O(h) +o(h) + O(h)
| {z }
| {z }

k
4 X
E(Ri2 ) = O
σk2 i=1

(∗)

= o(1)

(∗∗)

as h → 0

where the second term (∗) and the fourth term (∗∗) are from 8 and 4 in Lemma.S, respectively.
P
3. We show W3 = σ12 E( i6=j Qi Qj ) → 0. We first have
k

X 

1 X
E(Q
Q
)
=
E (2Ai Bi + Bi2 )(2Aj Bj + Bj2 )
i
j
2
σk
i6=j
i6=j
4 X
4 X
4 X
E(Ai Aj )E(Bi Bj ) + 2
E(Ai )E(Bi Bj2 ) + 2
E(Bi2 Bj2 )
= 2
σk
σk
σk
i6=j
i6=j
i6=j
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
H1

H2

25

H3

We’ll look at each term separately below.


L2i L1j
L2i L2j
L1i L2j
L1i L1j
−
+
E(Ai Aj ) = E
−
n1 n2
n1 n2
n21
n22
1/2

= p1i p1j

1/2

(n1 + u1 n1 )(n1 + u1 n1
n21
1/2

− 1)

1/2

− (p1i p2j + p1j p2i )

1/2

(n2 + u2 n2 )(n2 + u2 n2 − 1)
+ p2i p2j
n22





|ξi ||ξj |
2 |ξi ||ξj |
= O |ξi ||ξj | + u
+u
n1
n.5
1

2 !
u
= O |ξi ||ξj | 1 + .5
= O(|ξi ||ξj |)
n1


M1i M1j
M1i M2j
M2i M1j
M2i M2j
−
−
+
E(Bi Bj ) =E
n1 n2
n1 n2
n21
n22
1/2

1/2

h1 n1 (h1 n1
= p1i p1j
n2
 1

|ξi ||ξj |
= h2 O
n

1/2

(n1 + u1 n1 )(n2 + u2 n2 )
n1 n2

− 1)

where u = max(u1 , u2 )

1/2 1/2

− (p1i p2j

h1 h2 n1 n2
+ p1j p2i )
n1 n2

1/2

1/2

h2 n2 (h2 n2
+ p2i p2j
n22

where h = max(h1 , h2 ). We need to sum (I) over k(k − 1) terms and divide by σk2 as follows;

 P
k


4 X
n i6=j ξi2 ξj2
2
n||ξ||4
2
H1 = 2
E(Ai Aj )E(Bi Bj ) = h O ||P +P ||2 ≤ h2 O ||P +P2 ||2 = O( hn ) = o(1)
1
2
1
2
2
2
σk
i6=j

from the condition in Theorem 1, ||ξ||42 = O( n12 ||P1 + P2 ||22 ).
Additionally, we have
E(Ai ) = O(|ξi |)
!#
"
"

 #

2
2
M1j
M2j
M1j
M2j 2
M1i M2i
M1i M2i
2
E(Bi Bj ) = E
−
−
≤ 2E
+
+ 2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n1
n2
n21
n2
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
2
2
2
2
M1i M1j
M1i M2j
M2i M1j
M2i M2j
= 2E
+ 2E
+ 2E
+ 2E
n31
n1 n22
n2 n21
n32
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
1
2
3
4
which are
!

1 = hO

p1i p21j
p1i p1j
+
n1.5
n2

!

3 = hO

p2i p21j
p1i p2j
+
1.5
n
n2

26

!

, 2 = hO

p1i p22j
p1i p2j
+
n1.5
n2

!

, 4 = hO

p2i p22j
p2i p2j
+
1.5
n
n2

,
.

− 1)

Therefore we have
4 X
E(Ai )E(Bi Bj2 )
H2 = 2
σk
i6=j


P
p1i p21j
+
|ξ
|
i
n1.5
 i6=j
≤ hO 

√ P
n i6=j |ξi |p1i p21j

p1i p1j
n2

+

p1i p22j
n1.5

n−2
P

i6=j

+

p1i p2j
n2

+

||P1 + P2 ||22

|ξi |p1i p1j

p2i p21j
n1.5

+

p2i p22j
n1.5

+

p2i p2j
n2






√ P
n i6=j |ξi |p1i p22

+
+
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
P
√ P

n i6=j |ξi |p2i p22j
i6=j |ξi |p2i p2j
i6=j |ξi |p1i p2j
+
+
+
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
√



√

|ξ| · P1
n (|ξ| · P1 ) ||P1 ||22
n (|ξ| · P1 ) ||P2 ||22
= hO
+ hO
+ hO
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22






|ξ| · P1
(|ξ| · P2 )||P2 ||22
|ξ| · P2
+hO
+ hO
+ hO
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22




|ξ| · (P1 + P2 )(||P1 ||21 + ||P2 ||22 )
|ξ| · (P1 + P2 )
= hO
+ hO
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
= O(h) + O(h) = O(h)
= hO
P

where the second last equality is obtained from 5 in Lemma.S1 and ||P1 + P2 ||22 = O(1).
Lastly, H3 is equivalent to the following:
"
 
 #
M2j 2
1 X
M1i M2i 2 M1j
E
−
−
H3 = 2
n1
n2
n1
n2
σk
i6=j
"
!#

2
2
2
2
M1j
M2j
M1i
M2i
4 X
E
+ 2
+ 2
≤ 2
σk
n21
n2
n21
n2
i6=j
(
!
!
2 M2
2 M2
M1i
M1i
4 X
1j
2j
≤ 2
+E
+E
E
σk
n41
n41
i6=j




h4 X p21i p22j  h2 X p1i p2j 
= 2O
+ 2O
n
n3
σk
σk
i6=j



2 M2
M1i
1j
n41

2 M2
M2i
1j

n41

!
+E

2 M2
M2i
2j

!)

n41

i6=j



p2 p2

p p

= O(h4 1in21j + h2 1in31j ) and similar results for the other terms. Next,
P
P
to show that H3 = σ12 ki6=j E(Bi2 Bj2 ) → 0 as follows; using i6=j p21i p22j ≤ ||P1 ||22 ||P2 ||22 ≤

from E

k

||P1 ||2 ||P2 ||2 ≤ (||P1 ||22 + ||P2 ||22 ) = O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ) from 2 in Lemma.S1 and ||Pc ||2 ≤ 1 for

27

c = 1, 2, we have
Pk
H3 = h4 O

i6=j

p21i p21j

Pk

!

i6=j

+ h2 O

||P1 + P2 ||22

p1i p1j

!


n ||P1 + P2 ||22




1
||P1 ||22 ||P2 ||22
2
4
+h O
= h4 O(1) + h2 O(1) = O(h2 )
=h O
| {z } | {z }
||P1 + P2 ||22
n(||P1 + P2 ||22 )
(I)

(II)

where the second term is obtained from the condition 3 in Theorem 1.
P
4. We show W4 = σ12 E( i6=j Ri Rj ) → 0.
k

X

E [(κ1i M1i + κ2i M2i ) (κ1j M1j + κ2j M2j )]

i6=j

=

X

κ1i κ1j E(M1i M1j ) + 2

i6=j

X

κ1i κ2j E(M1i )E(M2j ) +

i6=j



X

κ2i κ2j E(M2i M2j )

i6=j



X 1
|ξ
|
+
|ξ
|
|ξ
||ξ
|
i
j
i j
p1i p1j  + 2h2 O n
+
+
p1i p2j 
= hO n
n4
n3
n2
i6=j
i6=j



X 1
|ξi | + |ξj | |ξi ||ξj |

+
+
p2i p2j  .
+hO n
n4
n3
n2
X

|ξi | + |ξj | |ξi ||ξj |
1
+
+
4
n
n3
n2







i6=j

Using

P

i6=j

Pk

p1i p2j ≤

i=1 p1i

X

Pk

j=1 p2j

(|ξi | + |ξj |)p1i p2j ≤

k
X

|ξi |p1i +

i=1

k
X

|ξi |p1i

i=1

i6=j

≤

= 1, n (P1 · P2 + ak ) ≥  > 0 for some  and

k
X

|ξj |p2j =

j=1

k
X

k
X

p2j +

j=1

k
X
j=1

|ξj |p2j

k
X

p1j

i=1

|ξi |(p1i + p2i ) = |ξ| · (P1 + P2 ),

i=1

for |ξ| = (|ξ1 |, . . . , |ξk |), we have
P
 P

P

i6=j E(Ri Rj )
i6=j p1i p2j
i6=j (|ξi | + |ξj |)p1i p2j
2
2
=h O
+h O
σk2
n||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
 P

n i6=j |ξi ||ξj |p1i p2j
+h2 O
||P1 + P2 ||22
 




|ξ| · (P1 + P2 )
n(|ξ| · P1 )(|ξ| · P2 )
1
2
2
2
=h O
+h O
+h O
.

||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
2
2
From |ξ| ∗ (P1 + P2 ) = O(||P
P 1 + P2 ||2 ) and n(|ξ| · P1 )(|ξ| · P2 ) = O(||P1 + P2 ||2 ) from 6 and

7 in Lemma.S1, we obtain

i6=j

E(Ri Rj )
σk2

= o(1) as h = o(1).

28

5. We show W5 =

P
1
E( i6=j
σk2

Qi Rj ) → 0. We have


1 X
1 X 
2 X
1 X
2
E(Q
R
)
=
E
(2A
B
+
B
)R
=
E(A
B
R
)
+
E(Bi2 Rj )
i
j
i
i
j
i
i
j
i
σk2
σk2
σk2
σk2
i6=j
i6=j
i6=j
i6=j
{z
} |
{z
}
|
K1

K2

We’ll
look at K1 and K2 separately. Since L1i s and M1i s are independent, we have K1 =
2 P
i6=j E(Ai )E(Bi Rj ). For E(Ai ), we have
σ2
k


E(Ai ) = E

L1i L2i
−
n1
n2



1/2

1/2

(n1 + u1 n1 )p1i n2 + u2 n2 p2i
=
−
= O(|ξi |)
n1
n2

Additionally, we have

|E(Bi Rj )| ≤ E

M1i M2i
−
n1
n2




(−κ1 M1j − κ2 M2j )



|κ1 |M1i M1j
|κ2 |M1i M2j
|κ1 |M2i M1j
|κ2 |M2i M2j
+
+
+
≤E
n1
n1
n2
n2


|ξj |p1i p1j
|ξj |p1i p2j
|ξj |p2i p1j
|ξj |p2i p2j
= h2 O
+
+
+
n
n
n
n



As before, we need to sum over k(k − 1) terms and divide by σk2 as follows;
 P

 P

n i6=j |ξi | |ξj | p1i p1j
n i6=j |ξi | |ξj | p1i p2j
2
2
K1 = h O
+
h
O
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
P
P




n i6=j |ξi | |ξj | p2i p1j
n i6=j |ξi | |ξj | p2i p2j
2
+h2 O
+
h
O
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
!
!


2
2
n
(|ξ|
·
P
)
n
(|ξ|
·
P
)
(|ξ|
·
P
)
n
(|ξ|
·
P
)
1
1
1
2
2
= h2 O
+ 2h2 O
+ h2 O
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
!
n (|ξ| · P1 + |ξ| · P2 )2
= h2 O
= O(h2 ) = o(1)
||P1 + P2 ||22
from n(|ξ| · (P1 + P2 ))2 = O(||P1 + P2 ||22 ) from 7 in Lemma.S1 and h → 0.

29

For K2 , we have
"
#
 
κ2j M2j
M1i, M2i 2 κ1j M1j
1 X
−
+
|K2 | = 2
E
n1
n2
σk
n21
n22
i6=j


 2
|κ1j |M1j
|κ2j |M2j
1 X
M1i M2i2
≤ 2
2E
+ 2
+
σk
n21
n2
n21
n22
i6=j

2)
2 M )
2M )
2 )E(M )
|κ1j |E(M1j M2i
|κ2j |E(M1i
|κ2j |E(M1i
1 X |κ1j |E(M1i
2j
1j
2j
+
+
+
= 2
2
2
4
2
2
4
σk
n1
n1 n2
n1 n2
n2
i6=j

= h2 O(

1
) = o(1)
n3.5 σk2

√
√
using n3.5 σk2  nn||P1 + P2 ||22 ≥ n → ∞ from the condition 2 in Theorem 1. Thus, we
have shown that W5 → 0.

E

Proof of Lemma 4

When X1i and X2i , for 1P≤ i ≤ k, come P
from independent PPoisson distributions for all
1 ≤ i ≤ k, from Fk ≡
Pk

i=1 G1i (X1i ,X2i ) d
→
σk

k
i=1

N (0, 1) and (ii)
Pk

k
i=1

G1i (X1i ,X2i )
σk
p
i=1 G2i (X1i ,X2i )
→ 0.
σk

f (X1i ,X2i )
σk
Pk

=

+

k
i=1

G2i (X1i ,X2i )
,
σk

we show (i)

G (X ,X )

The asymptotic normality of i=1 1iσk 1i 2i is obtained from the Lyapounov’s condition
X2i
(Billingsley (1995)) as follows: first, we have G2i (X1i , X2i ) = ( Xn1i
− Xn2i
)2 − ( Xn1i
2 + n2 ) −
1
2
(p1i − p2i )2 = ( Xn1i
− p1i )2 + ( Xn2i
− p2i )2 + 2ξi ( Xn1i
− p1i ) + ξi ( Xn2i
− p2i ) − ( Xn1i
2 +
1
2
1
2
1
ξi = p1i − p2i and we check the Lyapounov’s condition which is
Pk

i=1 E



1

X2i
)
n22

2

where



4
k
k
2
2
G2i (X1i , X2i )4
1 X X Xci
1 XX 4
Xci
8
≤ 4
E(
− pci ) + 4
ξ E
− pci
nc
nc
σk4
σk i=1 c=1
σk i=1 c=1 i
{z
} |
{z
}
|
(I)

+

k
X
i=1

|


E

X1i X2i
+
n2
n21
{z
(III)

(II)

2 4

.
}

P
i
m
Since we have E(Y − λ)2m = O( m
i=1 λ ) = O(λ + λ) for Y ∼ poisson(λ), we have


P P
!
k
2
P2


4 + pci
2
p
ci
i=1
c=1
max
p
1
n3c
i
ci
c=1
=O
(I) ≤ O 
+O
(33)
||P1 + P2 ||42
||P1 + P2 ||22
n3 ||P1 + P2 ||42
!
P2


2
1
c=1 maxi pci
≤O
+O
= o(1)
||Pc ||22
n3 ||P1 + P2 ||42

30

where the first O(·) term is o(1) due to the condition 2 in Theorem 1 and the second
term
P4 O(·) m
4
is also o(1) due to the condition 3 in Theorem 1. Similarly, from E(Y ) = O( m=1 λ ) =
O(λ4 + λ) for Y ∼ poisson(λ), we have
!
P




n2 ki=1 ξi4 (p2ci + npci
)
1
maxi p21i + maxi p22i
n2 ||ξ||42
ci
+O
=
O
(II) ≤ O
||P1 + P2 ||42
||P1 + P2 ||22
||P1 + P2 ||22
n3 ||P1 + P2 ||42
= o(1)O(1) + o(1) = o(1)
where the first O(·) term is o(1) due to the the result 2 in Lemma.S1 and the condition 4 in
Theorem 1 and the second O(·) term is o(1) due to the condition 3 in Theorem 1. Lastly, we
have


P P
2
k
4 + pci
p
ci
c=1
i=1
n3c

(III) = O 
4
||P1 + P2 ||2
!


2
X
1
2
=O
max pci + O
= o(1)
i
n3 ||P1 + P2 ||42
c=1
from the result 1 in Lemma.S1 in the Supplementary material and the condition 3 in Theorem
1. Combining these results,
we prove the Lyapounov’s condition is satisfied, so we have the
P
asymptotic normality of
i=1

Pk

Pk
V ar(

G1i (X1i ,X2i ) d
→
σk

N (0, 1).
P
p
→ 0, we see that E ki=1 G2i (X1i , X2i ) = 0, so it is sufficient to show

G2i (X1i ,X2i )
σk
i=1 G2i (X1i ,X2i )
)→
σk

For (ii)
V ar(

Pk

k
i=1

0. This can be shown by
!
2 (p + p )
ξ
1i
2i
i=1 i
||P1 + P2 ||22


n||ξ||22
= (max p1i + max p2i )O
= o(1)
i
i
||P1 + P2 ||22

i=1 G2i (X1i , X2i )
)=O
σk

n

Pk

from the maxi pci = o(1) in the result 2 in Lemma.S1 in the Supplementary material and the
d

condition 4 in Theorem 1. Using (i) and (ii), we conclude Fk → N (0, 1).

31

