Normal Distribution
nothing is called 95% until it has been counted
Concept

Familywise error rate — where it appears

The chance of at least one false positive anywhere in a set of comparisons, as distinct from the share of the findings that are false. Which of the two is being controlled is a choice about what a false claim costs, and a procedure controlling one says nothing about the other.

Named by 19 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The familywise error rate with no correction, α = 0.05. Two routes: the curve is 1 − (1 − α)^m and the points are counted over 6,000 simulated families of true nulls. With twenty tests the chance of at least one false positive is 64.1%.

What the correction corrects

Twenty tests of true nulls produce at least one false positive 64% of the time, and the closed form and the count agree. Bonferroni holds it at 5% and Holm holds it at 5% while finding more. Nobody should still be using Bonferroni.

multiplicity · Multiplicity What 20 analyses of one dataset are worth. The threshold giving a 5% family-wise error rate, read back as a number of independent analyses. At no correlation it is 20.05; at 0.6 it is 11.37; at 0.95 it is 2.58. Bonferroni divides by 20 throughout.

How many analyses there really were

Bonferroni divides by twenty because twenty analyses were run. Twenty analyses of one dataset are worth 11.37 independent ones at a correlation of 0.6 and 2.58 at 0.95, and the threshold that controls exactly the same error rate is measurable rather than assumed.

paths · Forking Eight candidates, one of them exactly as good as the benchmark. The candidate set: moving averages of the last 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 and 34 observations, each drawn as its expected squared error divided by the benchmark's — the mean of all 60. The persistence is not chosen, it is solved for: at φ = 0.4895 the best candidate in the set, the average of 2, has exactly the benchmark's expected squared error, and every other candidate is worse by between 0.5% and 5.1%. So the null that no candidate beats the benchmark is true, with one candidate on its boundary. Everything a set comparison claims about its own error rate has to be measured here, because anywhere further inside the null every procedure flatters itself.

Eight forecasters and one benchmark

A set of forecasters is a multiplicity problem on top of a dependence problem, and the two do not separate. Eight windows of one series carry the multiplicity of two and a half independent comparisons; eight separate problems carry eight.

ranking · Multiplicity Twenty tests, 10 of them real — what each procedure holds. no correction: familywise 40.8%, false discovery 5.3%, power 85%. Bonferroni: familywise 2.8%, false discovery 0.5%, power 49%. Holm: familywise 3.6%, false discovery 0.6%, power 53%. Benjamini–Hochberg: familywise 20.0%, false discovery 2.6%, power 75%.

Two different promises

Bonferroni bounds the chance of any false positive. Benjamini–Hochberg bounds the share of the findings that are false. Both are called correcting for multiple comparisons, and one of them lets the familywise rate reach 20%.

multiplicity · Multiplicity Naming the analysis in advance, against correcting for all 20 of them. The prespecified analysis detects an effect that is in it 52% of the time at two standard errors and an effect elsewhere 5% of the time. The corrected slate detects it 23% of the time wherever it is. The two are worth the same when the chance of having named the right analysis is 38% — and that figure rises to 91% at four standard errors.

What naming it in advance costs

Preregistration is argued for as free. Against an effect of two standard errors hiding in one of twenty analyses, naming the right one detects it 51.5% of the time and naming the wrong one detects it 4.7% of the time; correcting all twenty detects it 22.5% wherever it is. The two are worth the same when the chance of having named correctly is 38%.

paths · Forking The best of 8 arms, tested as though it were the only one. 8,000 trials with no effect in any arm. Stage one runs 8 arms at 60 each, the best is carried forward, and stage two adds 30 more to it and to the control. The histogram is where the final statistic lands and the curve is the standard normal it is being read against — shifted right, because the arm was chosen for being ahead. 10.5% of these trials clear 1.96 against a claimed 5%, and the value that actually holds the rate for this design is 2.313.

Dropping the losers

Carrying the best of eight arms forward and testing it at 1.96 rejects a true null 10.3% of the time — the hypothesis was chosen by looking at the data, so the statistic is a maximum wearing a single comparison's clothes. The value that holds the rate is 2.313, and it has to be solved for.

adaptive · Stopping 3 arms against one control, 360 units in all. Every control size, enumerated. The best is 132 on the control and 76 on each arm — a ratio of 1.74, against √3 = 1.73. Splitting the units evenly over all 4 groups costs 7.2%, which is small; what the larger control also does is lower the correlation between the comparisons, from 0.50 to 0.37, and that changes which multiplicity correction is right.

One control, many arms

The control appears in every comparison, so it is worth √k treatment arms — and the same sharing makes the k tests correlated at n/(n+n₀), which is the quantity Bonferroni ignores. Both facts come out of one design decision, and it is the size of the control.

allocation · Multiplicity Sixteen candidates nobody would have run, and what they cost. At φ = 0.65 one candidate in the original set is genuinely better than the benchmark, and the question is how often each procedure finds it. The added candidates are stale copies of the last value — read two, four, six … steps late — every one of them worse than the benchmark by at least 43%, and not one of them is ever the best candidate in a sample. The reality check goes from 35.5% to 0.0% as they are added, because its reference distribution has to assume every candidate is exactly as good as the benchmark and sixteen such assumptions is a critical value nothing reaches. The recentred version, which drops from the recentring the candidates the data has already ruled out — 15.1 of 24 of them — goes from 25.5% to 24.5%. The top line never moves: reporting the winner's own p-value cannot notice a change to a set it never looks at.

The models that were never in the running

A reference distribution for a set has to assume something about every candidate in it. Assuming that all of them are as good as the benchmark is what makes the reality check honest, and it is what sixteen hopeless candidates use to destroy it.

ranking · Multiplicity What the family-wise correction does to the effect it lets through. At two standard errors the estimate that clears an uncorrected 5% threshold averages 1.35 times the truth, and the one that clears the family-wise threshold averages 1.69 times it. The correction fixes the error rate by demanding a larger estimate, and a larger estimate is a more selected one.

The correction that makes the estimate worse

Correcting for twenty analyses repairs the p-value by demanding a larger statistic, and a larger statistic is a more selected one. At two standard errors the surviving estimate averages 1.35 times the truth before the correction and 1.69 times it after — so the honest error rate is bought with a more inflated effect.

paths · Forking The false discovery rate of twenty correlated tests, against the correlation. BH, every null true: 5.08% at 0, 4.86% at 0.3, 3.70% at 0.6, 2.34% at 0.9. BH, 10 of 20 real: 2.55% at 0, 2.53% at 0.3, 2.26% at 0.6, 1.66% at 0.9. BY, every null true: 1.46% at 0, 1.31% at 0.3, 1.03% at 0.6, 0.69% at 0.9. BY, 10 of 20 real: 0.72% at 0, 0.75% at 0.3, 0.64% at 0.6, 0.50% at 0.9. 20,000 families at each correlation.

False discoveries that arrive together

Correlate twenty tests and Benjamini–Hochberg still holds its false discovery rate — 1.66% at a correlation of 0.9 with ten real effects, against 2.55% when the tests are independent. What changes is how the errors come. A family of true nulls reports anything 2.34% of the time instead of 5.08%, and when it does, it reports 16.56 false findings out of twenty.

multiplicity · Multiplicity How much naming more analyses in advance is worth, at an effect of 2 standard errors, for four analysts' beliefs. Twenty analyses correlated at 0.6, one of which holds the effect. Each curve is an analyst whose belief falls by a fixed ratio from one choice to the next: 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9. The best number to name is 1, 3, 5, 15 respectively, and each best set holds between 80% and 90% of the analyst's belief. Every curve ends at 22.7%, the power of correcting for all twenty.

Naming a handful in advance

A preregistration that names three of twenty analyses sits between naming one and naming none, and whether it beats both depends on one thing: how much of the analyst's belief the three hold. An analyst who is 50% sure of a first choice, and whose belief halves down the list, gets 34.8% expected power from naming three, 28.3% from naming one and 22.7% from exploring all twenty. Spread the same 50% evenly over the rest and naming three is the worst of the three plans. The rule for adding one more to the list needs no belief at all: the next analysis must be at least 20.8% as likely as the first to be worth naming.

paths · Forking Thirty winners of twenty analyses, effect 2 standard errors in one of them, with two intervals each. Each row is the largest of twenty statistics correlated at 0.6, reported because it cleared the family-wise threshold of 2.846. The thin grey bar is the ordinary interval, z ± 1.96; the heavy bar is the interval conditional on the statistic having won; the tick is the true mean of the analysis that won. Of these thirty the ordinary interval misses 1 and the conditional one 2; over 4,468 reported winners they cover 76.0% and 94.9%.

An interval for the winner

The largest of twenty correlated analyses, reported because it cleared the family-wise threshold, carries an ordinary 95% interval that covers its true mean 75.96% of the time at an effect of two standard errors and never at all when there is no effect. An interval built on the fact that it won covers 94.90% — and it is 2.48 times as wide, excludes zero for only 14.10% of the winners, and has no lower limit at all for 14.32% of them. It restores the promise by declining to say most of what the ordinary interval said.

paths · Forking How often each reading rejects when every null is true. At the optimal combination of eight forecasts, where all eight encompassing nulls are exactly true, the share of 1,200 draws on which each reading rejects at 5%, at 60, 120, 240, 480 origins. The joint Wald test against a chi-square on seven degrees of freedom: 26.6%, 16.4%, 9.8%, 8.6%; with Hotelling's finite-sample F: 15.1%, 12.4%, 8.3%, 8.0%; the largest of the eight read as a single comparison: 25.0%, 25.9%, 24.7%, 23.4%; the largest with Bonferroni over eight: 5.2%, 4.9%, 4.7%, 4.4%.

One test for eight nulls

A combination of eight forecasts can be tested against its parts one comparison at a time or all at once. All at once is a Wald test on the vector of eight encompassing means — which has seven degrees of freedom, not eight, because the means sum to zero on every origin when weighted by the combination. On sixty origins it rejects a true null 26.6% of the time, Hotelling's correction brings that to 15.1%, and handed its own true critical value it is less powerful than Bonferroni over the largest of the eight against both wrong combinations measured: 12% against 18%, and 47% against 96%.

search · Multiplicity Twenty hypotheses tested in a declared order, the ten real effects listed first. Effects of three standard errors, ten real, familywise 5%. fixed sequence: 85.3% at position 1, 45.0% at 5, 20.4% at 10; overall power 46.10%; fallback: 49.1% at position 1, 56.4% at 5, 57.9% at 10; overall power 55.87%; Holm: 52.5% at position 1, 52.2% at 5, 52.5% at 10; overall power 52.53%.

An order that spends the error rate

Test twenty hypotheses in a declared order, each at the full 5% and each only if every one before it was rejected, and the first is found 85.3% of the time where Holm finds it 52.5%. The tenth is found 20.4% of the time, the product of the powers before it. Move one true null to the head of the list and every real effect behind it is found no more than 4.3% of the time.

multiplicity · Multiplicity How often a trial whose effect is the same for everyone shows a significant subgroup interaction, by the size of its subgroup table. Four hundred patients, 80% power overall, characteristics whose latents correlate 0 (their split indicators 0.000). Some interaction test reaches 5% in 5.10% at 1, 9.13% at 2, 17.43% at 4, 34.63% at 8, 47.13% at 12, 56.23% at 16; the equicorrelated-normal integral gives 5.00%, 9.75%, 18.55%, 33.66%, 45.96%, 55.99%. A Bonferroni reading of the eight holds 5.57%.

Sixteen subgroups and one effect

A trial of four hundred with 80% power tabulates its result by eight binary characteristics — sixteen subgroups — and the treatment's effect is the same for every patient. Among trials significant overall, 93.5% report at least one subgroup where it is not, and the median one reports seven. Some subgroup-against-the-rest interaction reaches 5% in 34.6% of trials — eight independent chances — and when the characteristics overlap as two age thresholds do, 18.6%, about four. The effective count is set by the correlation between the characteristics' split indicators, (2/π) arcsin of their latent correlation, and a Bonferroni reading of the eight holds the rate at 5% whatever the overlap.

alongside · Repetition How often a winner's interval covers when it is conditioned on the analyses admitted to rather than the twenty run, effect 2. The largest of twenty analyses reported when it clears the family-wise threshold for the k admitted. At k = 1, 2, 5, 10, 20: correlation 0.6, conditioned on the admitted family 95.3%, 94.9%, 94.9%, 95.1%, 95.2%; the ordinary interval 67.7%, 71.1%, 75.2%, 76.5%, 76.1%; correlation 0, conditioned on the admitted family 94.4%, 95.6%, 95.3%, 94.8%, 95.6%; the ordinary interval 47.2%, 52.0%, 58.9%, 62.4%, 64.7%.

An interval for the analyses admitted to

An analyst runs twenty correlated analyses, admits to one, and reports the winner with an interval conditioned on having cleared 1.96 — the selection as written down rather than as it happened. The interval covers 95.3% of the time, against 95.6% for one conditioned on all twenty, because a winner's truncation point is set by the threshold far more than by its unseen rivals: hiding nineteen analyses moves it by 0.061 on average. What the hiding changes is how often there is a winner at all. With no effect anywhere, a family of twenty produces a reported winner 35.5% of the time against 4.8% when all twenty are admitted, and one whose interval excludes zero 1.48% of the time against 0.13% — the interval keeps its promise and the report does not.

paths · Forking What Hansen's threshold costs, by the number of origins. The power a threshold of zero keeps over Hansen's, on the same draws. with sixteen stale candidates: 7.5%, 7.3%, 6.8%, 5.3%, 3.7%, 6.0%. the eight windows alone: 2.7%, 3.8%, 4.7%, 5.3%, 3.7%, 6.0%, at 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 origins. The price does not fall as the sample grows.

A threshold against its sample

A recentred test's threshold exists so that the test is right in the limit, and at a hundred origins it costs a fifth of the power against a stale set. The natural defence is that the price falls as the sample grows and the guarantee starts to earn it. Across twenty-five to eight hundred origins it does not: a threshold of zero keeps four to seven points more power at every size, and its size at the corner stays at the level from fifty origins on. What does change with the sample is the stale set, which stops costing anything by two hundred origins under Hansen's rule and by eight hundred under the most cautious.

ranking · Multiplicity How often one genuine interaction in a table of eight is found, by its size, at latent correlation 0. A trial of 400 with 80% power for its main effect, eight characteristics, the first modifying the effect. At h = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 the real interaction crosses 5% in 4.2%, 10.3%, 29.2%, 56.6%, 81.0% of trials; Bonferroni's 2.734 in 0.4%, 1.8%, 8.7%, 26.6%, 53.6%; the exact threshold for this overlap, 2.727, in 0.4%, 1.9%, 8.8%, 27.0%, 53.8%.

One characteristic that really matters

A trial of four hundred tabulates eight characteristics and one of them genuinely changes the treatment's effect — the whole effect on one side, none on the other. Tested alone at 5% the real interaction is found 81.0% of the time; at the Bonferroni threshold that protects the table, 53.6%. It is the table's largest interaction in 82.4% of trials when the characteristics are independent and in 54.4% when they overlap like nested age bands, and in that case another characteristic crosses the Bonferroni line in half of all trials and is the top finding in a quarter. A family-wise threshold counts false rows; it cannot say which of two overlapping rows is the cause.

alongside · Repetition The shape one real modifier leaves on a table of eight characteristics, and one trial's table. Expected interaction z when characteristic 1 modifies the effect at h = 1: 2.80, 2.00, 2.00, 2.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 — the real row 2.80, its three nested neighbours 0.713 of that, the four unrelated characteristics nothing. One seeded trial of 400 reads 1.91, 1.90, 2.06, 1.95, 0.14, 0.33, 0.39, 2.08.

The pattern a cause leaves on its neighbours

A characteristic that modifies a treatment's effect raises every characteristic that overlaps it, in proportion to the overlap, and fitting that pattern was supposed to say which one is the cause. Fitted with the noise's own correlation it names the largest row on every trial, because the noise draws the same pattern — so the 54.4% at which the largest row is right among nested characteristics is the most any reading of the table can manage, and the honest answer is a set of about five.

alongside · Repetition

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Multiple comparisonsBonferroniStatistical powerCorrelationFalse-positiveError rateThe garden of forking pathsMonte CarloHolmData snoopingDependenceInteraction

All concepts