I am confused by the likelihood ratio test's boundary condition limitation. A commonly stated is that it causes problem for variance parameter because it is bounded below by 0. Can these models compared with the likelihood ratio test
$Y\sim \text{Normal}(a,2)$
$Y\sim \text{Normal}(a,b)$
where, $a$ and $b$ are parameters? How about these
$Y\sim \text{Normal}(a,b)$
$Y\sim \text{Normal}(a,b+cx)$
where $a$, $b$, and $c$ are parameters, and $x$ is a covariate? If the likelihood ratio test cannot be used, how should they be compared using a null hypothesis significance testing?
A related question is that I think the likelihood ratio test is commonly used in binomial GLMs even though the probability parameter is bounded below and above. Why is it ok to use it for the probability parameter?