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

Null hypothesis — where it appears

The statement a test is calibrated against, which is often a region rather than a point. Where it is a region, a test has to be calibrated at some configuration inside it, and the data may be somewhere else in the region entirely.

Named by 20 essays across 13 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Three quantities, and only one of them crosses zero. Two forecasts of an AR(1) — the last value carried forward and the mean of the last 60 observations — at 1 step ahead. The curve through zero is σ₁² − σ₂², the difference in expected squared error that a comparison of accuracy tests; it changes sign at φ = 0.4922. The two curves above it are σ₁² − σ₁₂ and σ₂² − σ₁₂, the quantities the two encompassing tests are about, and neither of them comes near zero anywhere: the smallest value either takes across the range is 0.008 times the variance of the series. All three are closed forms in φ, R and h with no simulation in them. Equal accuracy is one hypothesis about this picture and encompassing is another, and a set of numbers can satisfy either without the other.

What the other forecast adds

Two forecasters, one series, and two different questions about them. Which is more accurate has an answer that changes with the persistence of the series; whether either is redundant has an answer that never changes at all.

ranking · Forecast One true null, one table, five readings. every subset of four, fifteen models, at a null where nothing any candidate holds is worth anything, over 500 draws. Each bar is the share of draws on which that reading declares a difference at a nominal 5%. The reading is the whole of the difference between the bars: the data is identical. An open search over all 210 ordered pairs rejects 76.2%; the table's own 5% point is 3.163 against the 1.671 a single comparison uses. Bonferroni takes the open reading to 0.6% — and on the nested ladder the same correction does not reach the nominal level at all, because there the excess is a shift in the mean rather than a maximum over many.

When the benchmark is a candidate

A specification search with a benchmark nailed down is the case with a closed form. Take the nail out — let the model that would have been reported be one of sixteen, chosen by the same data as its rivals — and the same true null is read three ways, at 2.0%, 7.8% and 76.2%.

select · Forecast One comparison, and the two error bars it can be given. 60 rolling origins, a window of 60 observations, forecasts 4 steps ahead, at the persistence φ = 0.8256 where the two benchmarks have exactly equal population mean squared error. Each mark is one origin's difference in squared error; the horizontal line is their mean, 0.6522. The two vertical bars at the right are ±1.96 standard errors round that mean computed two ways — 0.5337 treating the differences as independent, 0.6880 allowing for the overlap between neighbouring forecasts. The null is true here by construction, so an interval that excludes zero is a mistake, and the narrow one does it far more often than the wide one.

Which forecast is better

Two forecasters, one series, and a difference in mean squared error. Whether that difference is real is a hypothesis test, its terms are not independent, and the standard error it needs is not the one a t-test computes.

evaluation · Forecast 20,000 p-values from a true null, n = 12. Flat, as it must be: under the null a p-value is uniform on (0,1). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance from uniform is 0.0090 (p = 0.81). That flatness is the check that catches an error a single rejection rate would miss.

A p-value that is not flat is not a p-value

Under a true null, p-values are uniform. That is stronger than saying the test rejects 5% of the time, it constrains the whole distribution rather than one point of it, and it catches implementation errors that a rejection rate sails past.

testing · Uniformity The distribution of the largest statistic in the table. Fit the benchmark to the whole series, resample its residuals, simulate 199 series in which the null is true by construction, re-run the entire eight-variant search on each, and keep the largest statistic. That is the distribution drawn here, and it is the distribution of the thing a specification search actually reports. It is centred at 1.045 — the maximum of eight statistics is not centred at zero however well each of them behaves — and its 5% point is 2.536. A table read against 1.671 is reading the distribution of one statistic; a Bonferroni correction reads it against 2.577 and is nearly right here, because eight variants that each add a different lag are nearly eight separate chances.

A null with a model in it

The distribution to read the winner of a table against cannot be resampled from the data, because the data does not contain the null. It has to be generated from a model — which is the assumption the resampling was chosen to avoid.

search · Bootstrap 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 Every way of splitting 16 units into two halves. All 12,870 assignments, enumerated. The spread of the standardised imbalance is exactly 2/√n = 0.500, whatever the covariate's own distribution, and 33.3% of assignments differ by more than 0.5 standard deviations. Randomisation does not deliver balance; it delivers a known distribution of imbalance.

Randomisation is not balance

A third of all ways to split sixteen units leave the two halves more than half a standard deviation apart on a covariate. What randomisation delivers is not balance but a known reference distribution — and it makes a test exact with no assumption about the data's shape at all.

design · Randomisation Where the residual test's statistic actually falls, at n = 200. Four thousand pairs of unrelated random walks, each regressed on the other and each residual tested for a unit root. The statistic is computed as a t and its distribution is not a t: five per cent of it falls below -3.38, where the ordinary one-sided 5% point of a t on 198 degrees of freedom is -1.65. Everything left of -1.65 — 70.2% of the whole distribution — is a pair of unrelated walks that a t table calls cointegrated.

The test with no table

The statistic that separates a real long-run relation from a spurious one is computed as a t and is not a t. At two hundred observations its 5% point is −3.38 where the t table says −1.65, and reading it against the table calls two unrelated random walks cointegrated 70.5% of the time.

cointegration · Spurious A test between nested models, under a null that is true. 1000 comparisons: an AR(1) truth, forecast by a fitted AR(1) and by a fitted AR4 whose extra coefficients are zero. In population the two forecasts are identical, so every rejection is false. The larger model's mean squared error is 1.1663 against 1.0583 — worse, by exactly the noise in estimating coefficients that are not there — and the ordinary test therefore declares the smaller model significantly better 67.2% of the time. Read one-sided in the direction anybody asks about, it finds the larger model better 0.0% of the time. Adding the squared difference between the two forecasts back into the loss differential puts the level at 4.9%.

When one model contains the other

The comparison a forecaster most often wants is between a model and the same model with one more term. That is exactly the comparison the standard test cannot make — and it fails by declaring the smaller model significantly better, more confidently the more data it is given.

evaluation · Forecast One distribution, two effects. Three causal structures fitted to one covariance matrix over a treatment, a covariate and an outcome. Each reproduces it exactly — the largest entry-wise disagreement across all three is 4.4e-16 — so no sample of any size distinguishes them. The regression of the outcome on the treatment and the covariate returns 0.500 in all three, to within 4.4e-16, because that coefficient is a function of the covariance and of nothing else. The effect the three worlds hold is 0.500, 0.848 and 0.848: adjusting is exactly right in the first and off by −0.348 in the other two. The arithmetic cannot see the difference and the difference is the whole question.

The two worlds that look the same

Three causal structures were fitted to one covariance matrix and agree with it to 4.4·10⁻¹⁶. The regression returns 0.5000 under all three; the effect they hold is 0.5000, 0.8481 and 0.8481. What separates structures is a missing edge, and the signature of one is a correlation of exactly zero.

collider · Conditioning Four analyses of the same 3-arm trials, under a true null. 250 trials of 150 patients, 3 arms, minimisation with p = 0.85, 99 re-randomisations for each exact test. Two statistics — an F on the arms alone and an F on the arms after the balanced factors — against two reference distributions: the table the statistic is named for, and the distribution the allocation rule itself generates when the outcomes are held fixed and the rule is re-run. Only the first cell is wrong, and it is wrong in the direction that costs power rather than the one that manufactures findings: 0.0% where 5% is claimed. Either repair works — adjusting for what the rule balanced, or asking the rule what it would have done.

The analysis after three arms

An unadjusted analysis after a two-arm balancing rule rejects 0.6% of true nulls where it claims 5%. With three arms and a deterministic rule it rejects none at all — and the repair is the same repair, which is a sentence and a column in the model.

multiarm · Assignment Each repair is for its own defect, and one is for both. The 95% point of the statistic's own distribution in each world, against the mean 95% point of five reference distributions built from one sample. Where the error variance is a function of the design, the two resamplings that detach a residual from its row fall short and the two multipliers that keep it there do not; where the rows repeat each other it is the other way round. With both defects at once the blocked multiplier — drawn once per run of 5 rows, so the residual never moves and its neighbours share a sign — is the closest of the five, at 2.999 against a truth of 3.803. It is still short by 0.804, and that shortfall is the next figure.

Two defects and one resampling

Four resamplings, each the repair for one defect and wrong about the other. Put both defects in the same world and the statistic's 5% point is 3.8028, where the best of the four reaches 2.8326 — until a multiplier that stays on its own row and shares a sign with its neighbours reaches 2.9988.

proxy · Bootstrap The distribution the table does not have. 599 series simulated from the smaller model fitted to one comparison's own data, the whole rolling comparison re-run on each, and the ordinary statistic recorded. Under this null the two forecasts are the same forecast in population, so what is left in a sample is the larger model's estimation error and the statistic is centred at -1.134 rather than at zero. Its 95% point is 0.264; the standard normal drawn behind it puts that point at 1.645. Reading this statistic against that curve is not a poor approximation, it is a different distribution: the share of this one above 1.645 is 0.2%.

A distribution drawn from the null

Between nested models the ordinary comparison statistic has a null distribution centred at minus one and a 95% point of a quarter. A correction to its mean repairs the centre and leaves the shape; simulating the null repairs both.

ranking · Bootstrap A bias against a variance, with the answer in between. How wrong one sample's reference distribution is, split into the two things it is wrong by. Sharing the multiplier over more rows keeps more of the dependence and closes the bias from 1.688 to 0.835; every row it is shared over also removes an independent sign from the 101 the sample started with, and the spread of the resulting quantile rises from 1.307 to 2.172. The distance a practitioner with one sample is actually exposed to is the two together, and it is smallest at ℓ = 5.

How long a block a multiplier shares

Sharing a sign over more rows keeps more of the dependence and leaves fewer independent signs to build a distribution from. The bias falls from 1.6885 to 0.8479 and the spread rises from 1.3073 to 2.1716, and the rejection rate walks straight through its nominal level on the way from 11.3% to 1.3%.

proxy · Reference What the corner costs when the table is full of hopeless candidates. The benchmark holds two predictors, one of which is worth 1; a third predictor, worth the amount on the horizontal axis, is held only by candidates the benchmark does not contain. At the left the null is true and both procedures hold their level. To the right there is a genuinely better candidate, and the uncorrected reality check finds it 2.7% of the time while the same test with the clearly bad columns recentred finds it 51.0% of the time. The columns doing the damage are the ones nobody would have looked at twice: they are so far behind that they cannot win, and calibrating as though they might is what makes the test blind.

The corner the test is calibrated at

"No candidate is better than the benchmark" is not a null but a face of a region, and a reality check is calibrated at one corner of it. Fill the table with candidates that are hopeless rather than equal and the test finds a genuine improvement 0.0% of the time.

select · Reference Eight encompassing nulls, all of them true at once. The forecast under test is the variance-minimising combination of the eight candidates, and the first-order condition that defines its weights is cov(e_c, e_j) = var(e_c) for every j — so every one of the eight nulls is exactly true simultaneously and every rejection counted here is false. 800 draws of 60 origins. The largest of the eight statistics rejects 25.0% of the time at a nominal 5% and one comparison stated in advance rejects 3.1%, which makes the set worth about 9.1 independent comparisons — nearly the eight it has. Bonferroni, which is far inside its level on a search over accuracy comparisons of the same eight forecasters, is at 4.8% here.

When every null is true

A reality check assumes that every candidate in the set is exactly as good as the benchmark, which is a configuration nobody's data is ever in. Test a combination against its own parts and that configuration is not assumed — it is what the arithmetic makes true.

search · Multiplicity The same error, caught or invisible, by how it is arranged. The overidentification test's rejection rate against the error the violation actually puts into the estimate, so the two rows are the same estimate being equally wrong. With the whole violation on one instrument the test keeps its size at 5.0% under the null and reaches 86.4% by an error of 0.800. With both instruments violating in the same ratio as their first stages the two Wald ratios are identical, the test has nothing to compare, and it rejects at 5.8% at that same error — its own size. Over 1000 draws of 300 rows at each setting, at a nominal 5.0%. The test is a comparison between instruments and it was never a check on either.

Two instruments that disagree

The overidentification test keeps its size at 5.0% and reaches 86.4% power against a violation carried by one instrument. Against the same error carried by both in proportion to their first stages it rejects on 4.6% of draws — its own size — while the estimate is wrong by 0.3000, which is 94.2% of the confounding the instruments were brought in to remove.

instrument · Exclusion How long an honest forecaster looks broken for. The calibration error shown by a forecaster with no miscalibration in it at all, at five record lengths, drawn against one over the square root of the length so that the closed form is a straight line through the origin. It is 0.1252 at fifty forecasts and 0.0090 at ten thousand, against a closed form of √(2K/πn) times the mean root bin variance which gives 0.1257 and 0.0089. The threshold drawn across it is 0.02, a figure routinely read as evidence that something is wrong; the mean falls under it at 1976 forecasts and the 95th percentile at about 4111. Below that, an honest forecaster and a miscalibrated one are being told apart by a statistic that is mostly the sample size.

The miscalibration a perfect forecaster shows

A forecaster whose true reliability is exactly zero shows a calibration error of 0.1252 on fifty forecasts and 0.0090 on ten thousand. Every one of 1,200 blameless hundred-forecast records exceeds the 0.02 routinely read as evidence of a problem, and the mean does not fall under it until 1,976 forecasts.

calibrate · Calibration Storey's estimate of the share of true nulls over twenty thousand families, independent and correlated at 0.6. The true share is 0.5. Independent tests: mean 0.610, spread 0.160, below half the truth in 0.92% of families. Correlated at 0.6: mean 0.609, spread 0.240, below half the truth in 9.33%.

Estimating how many nulls are true

Benjamini–Hochberg at 5% delivers 2.55% when half of twenty nulls are false, because it cannot tell how many are. Storey's estimate of that share, read off the p-values above one half, spends the rest and finds 81.93% of the real effects instead of 74.70% on independent tests. Correlated at 0.9, the same procedure reports a finding in 19.29% of families in which every null is true.

multiplicity · 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

Named alongside it

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

Error rateMonte CarloStatistical powerReference distributionBenchmark forecastp-valueBlock bootstrapBonferroniCritical valueLoss differentialMean squared errorSpecification search

All concepts