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

p-value — where it appears

The probability, computed under the null hypothesis, of a test statistic at least as extreme as the one observed. It is a statement about data given a hypothesis and never about a hypothesis given data, and it is undefined until the sampling plan is fixed — the same numbers mean different things under different stopping rules.

Named by 32 essays across 18 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The allocations the rule could have made, from these exact patients. One 200-patient trial allocated by response-adaptive randomisation, re-randomised 999 times. No outcome is redrawn anywhere in this figure: each re-randomisation runs the same rule over the same patients in the same order, so what is drawn is the set of experiments that could have happened rather than a sampling distribution. The observed |z| is 1.417, 258 of the 999 re-randomisations reach it, and the p-value is (1 + 258)/(1 + 999) = 0.2590. The curve is the half-normal the ordinary analysis reads the same statistic against; its 5% point is 1.96 and this distribution's is 2.101.

The experiments that could have happened

An adaptive trial's allocation is a function of the outcomes it will later be compared against, so the ordinary analysis rejects a true null 9.2% of the time. Hold the outcomes fixed, re-run the rule that assigned them, and count — the same statistic against a reference distribution the trial could actually have drawn from is back at 4.0%.

exact · Reference Testing at 0.05 every time the data is looked at. The null is true in every one of these trials and the test is correct every time it is run. Looking once rejects 4.9% of the time, as it should; looking ten times rejects 19.2% of the time. Nothing changed except permission to look.

When the looking happens

A p-value is defined relative to a sampling plan, so the same data means different things under different stopping rules. Testing five times at the nominal level rejects a true null 14% of the time, and no observation in the dataset changed.

sequential · Stopping 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 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 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 Four boundaries for 5 looks, all spending 5% in total. test at 0.05 every look: 1.96, 1.96, 1.96, 1.96, 1.96. Pocock — a constant, higher boundary: 2.41, 2.41, 2.41, 2.41, 2.41. O'Brien–Fleming — strict early, nearly nominal at the end: 4.55, 3.22, 2.63, 2.27, 2.03. Bonferroni across looks: 2.58, 2.58, 2.58, 2.58, 2.58. Every one except the first spends the same total error rate; they differ in when they spend it.

Spending the error rate

The repair for interim testing is to spend 5% across the looks rather than at each one. The boundaries are solvable rather than quotable, and a trial that can stop early uses 298 observations where a fixed design uses 400 — at a cost of half a point of power.

sequential · Stopping Where the normal approximation converges, and where it does not. Relative error against the exact binomial. At n = 1280 the error at the median is 0.96% and three sigma out it is 25.7% — a factor of 27. The tail is where the approximation is used.

The tail converges last

The central limit theorem is usually shown as a shape arriving. What the demonstration leaves out is the rate — and the rate is wildly different in the middle and in the tail, which is where every approximation in the subject is actually read.

normal · Rate The allocations the rule could have made, from these exact patients. One 200-patient trial allocated by response-adaptive randomisation, re-randomised 999 times. No outcome is redrawn anywhere in this figure: each re-randomisation runs a fair coin rule over the same patients in the same order, so what is drawn is the set of experiments that could have happened rather than a sampling distribution. The observed |z| is 1.417, 155 of the 999 re-randomisations reach it, and the p-value is (1 + 155)/(1 + 999) = 0.1560. The curve is the half-normal the ordinary analysis reads the same statistic against; its 5% point is 1.96 and this distribution's is 1.946.

The test that needs the rule

A randomisation test assumes almost nothing about the data and one thing about the experiment. Tell it a fair coin produced an allocation that an adaptive rule produced — which is what every off-the-shelf permutation routine does — and it rejects 8.0% of true nulls where knowing the rule gives 4.0%.

exact · Reference 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 Two independent random walks, 100 steps. Nothing connects these two series: each is generated from its own independent draws. Regressing one on the other gives a slope with t = -10.9, R² = 0.55 and p = 0.0e+0 — a result that would be reported as a finding by any standard output.

Two walks and a finding

Regress one random walk on another, independently generated, and the slope is significant 76.7% of the time with a median R² of 0.17. Nothing connects the two series, nothing in the output says so, and more data makes it worse.

timeseries · Spurious Power at an effect of 0.5 standard deviations. The curve is the non-central t on 2n − 2 degrees of freedom with δ = d√(n/2); the dots are 4,000 experiments run at each size. Reaching 80% power needs 64 per arm.

What a p-value does not say

The same p of 0.04 corresponds to a large effect in ten observations and a negligible one in two thousand. A p-value alone cannot be interpreted, and the number that makes it interpretable is almost never printed beside it.

testing · Power Two studies with an R-squared of 0.85. The left study's points sit 0.50 from the line and the right study's 2.00 — a factor of 4.0. Both report an R-squared of 0.85 and, at the same sample size, the same standard error for the slope. The design was chosen to make it so, and it can always be chosen.

The t statistic wearing different clothes

For a simple regression, t² = (n − 2)R²/(1 − R²), exactly, on every dataset — checked to sixteen significant figures over five hundred fits. So a paper reporting R² and a p-value has reported one number twice, and two studies with the same R² have points four times further from the line.

spread · Summary Two 95% intervals 2.772 standard errors of the difference apart, standard errors in the ratio 1. The intervals are separated, and the test of the difference gives p = 0.0056. Two 95% intervals with equal standard errors just touch at p = 0.0056.

Two intervals that overlap

Two 95% intervals that just touch are read as a difference at the edge of significance. With equal standard errors their difference has p = 0.0056, not 0.05; two intervals can overlap by 58.6% of an arm and still differ at exactly 5%; standard-error bars that just touch mark p = 0.157; and when the two estimates are correlated at 0.8, touching intervals conceal a difference of 6.2 standard errors. Read as a test, non-overlap needs 1.66 times the sample for the same power.

alongside · Repetition The one thing a trial always reports is the one thing that survives. How wrong three p-values are when they are computed over the half of the admissible set a single walk can reach, rather than over all of it, at a fourteen-unit trial where the whole set can be enumerated. The two-sided p-value on the difference in arm means — the number a trial publishes — is wrong by exactly nothing, at every row, to machine precision. That is not luck: the two components are complement pairs and the difference in arm means is exactly negated by the complement, so the distribution of its absolute value is the same on both. A one-sided p-value on the same statistic is out by as much as 0.112, and the largest response observed in the treated arm — a safety reading rather than an effect, and the one statistic here that is not odd under the complement — by as much as 0.172. The defect survived because the commonest thing anybody computes is the one quantity it cannot touch.

Half a reference distribution

A walk that reaches half its admissible set reports the two-sided p-value exactly right, to the last digit, for ever. A one-sided one it puts on the wrong side of five per cent about once in thirty.

after · Reference Where the +1 matters, and why nobody has noticed that it does. The true size of the two rules at every B, computed rather than simulated: under the null the count of re-randomisations reaching the observed statistic is uniform over {0 … B}, so both sizes are integer arithmetic. With the +1 the size is (⌊α(B+1)⌋)/(B+1), which never exceeds 5%. Without it the size is (⌊αB⌋+1)/(B+1), which is larger except at B = 19, 39, 59 — the values with B + 1 a multiple of 1/α, and the values everybody uses. At B = 19 the two rules are the same rule; at B = 20 the uncorrected one is a 9.5% test. The marks are simulated on 500 trials of 120 patients, as the second route to the same numbers.

The plus one and the round number

A sampled randomisation test counts the observed allocation as one of its own reference draws, and the correction is invisible at B = 19, 39, 59 and 999 — every value anybody uses. At B = 20 the version without it is an 8.00% test where the corrected one is 3.80%, and the convention protecting everybody is a preference for round numbers minus one.

exact · Reference Twenty samples of 40, every one of them genuinely normal. Each panel is a quantile-quantile plot of 40 draws from a normal distribution. The worst point in the worst panel sits 0.87 standard deviations off the line. Anything a reader would reject here would be a false alarm.

What normal actually looks like

A single quantile plot of forty normal points wanders enough to look suspicious. Twenty of them, all genuinely normal, show what the noise looks like — and any single panel a reader would have rejected is in there.

normal · Qq Two studies of the same effect, z statistics with mean 1.96: where one is significant and the other is not. Five hundred pairs. With the true effect identical in both, exactly one of the two is significant in 50.0% of pairs; among those, the difference between the two is significant in 9.7%. The dashed lines mark 1.96 on each axis; the diagonal lines mark a significant difference.

Significant in one, not in the other

Two studies of exactly the same effect, each with 50% power, disagree about significance half the time — and when they do, the test of the difference between them is significant in 9.75% of cases. A p of 0.01 beside a p of 0.20 is a difference with p = 0.36. Among four subgroups sharing one effect, at least one significant and one not happens 87.5% of the time, and the test that would tell a real difference apart needs four times the sample the effect itself needed.

alongside · Repetition 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 Where the set stops being one set. How many of the 3,432 equal splits of fourteen units a balancing rule admits, as the tolerance tightens, with the number of components single swaps leave it in. The set falls from 886 to 84 assignments, and somewhere in that fall it stops being connected: at 0.8 it is in 2 pieces and every assignment's complement is in the other one. Nothing about the rule changes at that point and nothing a chain reports changes either, which is the whole difficulty — the acceptance rate, the stationary distribution and the detailed balance are all in order on both sides of it.

Before the trial and after

The same diagnostic run at two moments answers two different questions. Before, a positive verdict changes the design. After, it changes which number gets reported — and only for the numbers the defect can reach.

after · Assignment Where a walk is cheaper than a hunt. Both costs in the same unit. A rejection sampler evaluates 1/p assignments per independent draw and does not care how large the trial is; a walk evaluates one per step and yields an effective draw every τ steps, and τ is a property of the constraint and the statistic together. They cross at a tolerance of 0.194 standard deviations, where about one assignment in 396 is admissible — far tighter than any trial is designed at. And the walk does not remove the acceptance cost; it pays it once, hunting for somewhere to start.

Draws that repeat each other

A hunt costs 1/p evaluations per independent draw. A walk costs one per step and yields an effective draw every τ steps. Both are counted in the same unit, and the walk is dearer at every tolerance a trial is designed at.

joint · Reference Power at an effect of 0.5 standard deviations. The curve is the non-central t on 2n − 2 degrees of freedom with δ = d√(n/2); the dots are 4,000 experiments run at each size. Reaching 80% power needs 64 per arm.

How many subjects

Sixty-four per arm for 80% power at half a standard deviation — a power figure that could only be simulated, with nothing to disagree with, until the non-central t was written. Two routes now, agreeing to within the simulation's own error.

design · Power What a positive test means, sensitivity 90%, specificity 95%. At a prevalence of one in a thousand, 98 of every hundred positives are false. At one in 10, 33 are. The test has not changed.

The base rate was always Bayes

The screening arithmetic everybody finds counter-intuitive is a posterior update with a prior of one in a thousand. Naming it that way turns a famous puzzle into an instance of a rule, and makes the sequential version obvious.

bayes · Baserate The false-positive rate against the number of analyses, on pure noise. The data has no effect in it. Each analysis is correct and each p-value is honest. With 20 correlated outcomes available, something reaches p below 0.05 58% of the time.

Twenty analyses of nothing

Twenty honest, correct analyses of data with no effect in it find something significant 57% of the time. Nobody p-hacked, every individual p-value is right, and the reported one is the smallest of twenty.

testing · Forking The rate falls geometrically; the count does not fall at all. The share of equal splits of two hundred units that a tolerance of 1 coin-spreads admits, against the number of functions the tolerance is stated for, with the closed form (2Φ(1) − 1)^k drawn beside it. The rate falls by about two thirds with every constraint. The admissible count is that rate times C(200, 100), and it goes from 2^195 to 2^192 — it does not fall in any sense a trial cares about. What the falling rate costs is sampling: 9,878 draws to collect a thousand admissible ones at six constraints, against 1,465 at one.

What a reference distribution costs to sample

A randomisation test on a trial too large to enumerate has to sample its reference distribution, at 1/p attempts per draw and a p-value resolved to 1/(B + 1). Six constraints cost 9,878 attempts per thousand draws, and a thousand draws resolve p to 9.99·10⁻⁴ and not one digit finer.

product · Reference The cheap repair needs a number nobody has. The obvious alternative to re-randomising is to simulate the design under its null once and use the critical value that comes out — which is what the arm-dropping design does, where the critical value has to be solved for and is 2.313. It does not transfer here. The rule chases outcomes, so how imbalanced the allocation gets depends on how often anything succeeds, and the critical value moves from 1.668 at a success rate of 0.05 to 2.718 at 0.8. Calibrated at 0.3 and used at 0.8 the test's real size is 12.4%; used at 0.05 it is 0.12%. The randomisation test needs none of this, because it conditions on the outcomes that happened rather than on a rate they were supposed to come from.

What the exactness buys

Against a z test calibrated to reject exactly 5% of true nulls on this design, the randomisation test loses nineteen points of power. What it buys is that the calibration needs the success rate — which moves the critical value from 1.668 to 2.718 and is the quantity the trial was run to find out.

exact · Nuisance Where the constraints exhaust the randomisation. At 16 units there are 12,870 equal splits, so the ones meeting a stated tolerance can be counted rather than estimated. With each of the first k standardised imbalances required to be within 0.4 of a coin's own spread, the admissible count runs 3874 → 1006 → 314 → 0 → 0 → 0 — and at 4 functions there is no admissible assignment at all. The count is the number of distinct answers a randomisation test can give: at 3 functions its finest attainable p-value is 1 in 314. Balance improves with every constraint and the reference distribution shrinks with it, and the two run out at different rates.

When the constraints run out

Every function added to a basis is a constraint the assignment has to satisfy with the same units. At sixteen units and a stated tolerance the admissible assignments run 3,874, then 1,006, then 314, then none — and the count is exact, because the assignment space is finite.

basis · Allocation Ordered stagewise: the outcomes at least as extreme as stopping at 160 observations with z = 3.3. Each column is one look of an O'Brien–Fleming trial; above the boundary a trial stops there. Highlighted are the outcomes that count as at least as extreme as the observed one when outcomes are ordered stagewise: at 80, z ≥ 4.56 (probability 2.54 × 10⁻⁶ with no effect); at 160, z ≥ 3.30 (probability 4.82 × 10⁻⁴ with no effect); at 240, none; at 320, none; at 400, none. The two-sided p-value is 9.69 × 10⁻⁴.

The outcomes a trial could have stopped with

A trial that stops at its second look with z = 3.3 has a two-sided p-value of 0.000969, 0.000987, 0.00187 or 0.0421, depending on how the outcomes it could have stopped with are ordered. One of the four orderings does not change when the looks the trial never reached are replanned, and the same one gives a trial that ran to the end with z = 6 a p-value of 0.0256.

sequential · Stopping The p-value of a study with 80% power, twenty thousand times. Twenty thousand two-sided z-tests, each on 25 observations whose true mean is 0.5603 standard deviations from the null, a noncentrality of 2.802. The bars are the counted share of p-values in bins a quarter of a power of ten wide, with the leftmost bin holding everything smaller; the line is the closed form. The middle eighty per cent of the p-values runs from 4.4×10⁻⁵ to 0.13, 3.46 orders of magnitude, the median is 0.0051, and 80.0% fall below 0.05, which is what the power means.

The p-value a replication gets

Under a true null a p-value is flat. Under a real effect its distribution is closed form and wide — a study with 80% power returns anything from 4.4×10⁻⁵ to 0.13 in eight runs of ten — and the chance that an exact replication of a p = 0.05 result is significant again is exactly one half, under both of the models people use without naming them.

testing · Uniformity 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 Three ways to reject with two studies, drawn where the two z statistics live. Two one-sided studies, each summarised by its z statistic. Fisher's combination rejects outside a curve that runs parallel to both axes, so one study past z = 2.378 decides it alone; Stouffer's rejects above the straight line z₁ + z₂ = 2.326; Tippett's rejects when either z passes 1.955. Each region holds exactly 5% of the standard bivariate normal — Fisher's in closed form, e^(−c/2)(1 + c/2) at c = 9.488 — and of 100,000 counted null pairs they catch 4.95%, 4.88% and 5.04%. Two alternatives carry the same Stouffer evidence: one study at 2.326 and the other at nothing, where the powers are 62.7%, 50.0% and 65.4%; and both at 1.163, where they are 47.7%, 50.0% and 38.3%.

Two ways to combine p-values

Fisher's and Stouffer's combinations are both exactly right when every null is true, for the single reason that each p-value is flat. Under a real effect they disagree about which evidence counts: with Stouffer held at 50% power across ten studies, Fisher is the more powerful while the signal sits in six or fewer of them and the less powerful from seven.

testing · Uniformity How often each combination, and each union of them, rejects ten studies of nothing. Each combination alone rejects exactly 5% of null sets. Counted on 1,000,000 sets of ten null studies: Fisher or Stouffer 6.63%, Fisher or Tippett 8.05%, Stouffer or Tippett 8.96%, any of the three 9.66% — enclosed on a two-dimensional lattice between 9.18% and 10.09% — and all three together 1.05%. The three sizes add to 15%.

The smallest of three combinations

Reporting whichever of Fisher's, Stouffer's and Tippett's combinations is smallest is a test of its own, and on ten studies of nothing it rejects 9.66% of the time — not 5%, and nowhere near the 15% the three sizes add to, because the statistics are correlated at up to 0.903. Read at 2.448% each it is exact, and then it trails the best single combination by at most 7.45 points and leads the worst by at least 10.30.

testing · Uniformity

Named alongside it

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

Error rateReference distributionStatistical powerMonte CarloRandomisation testUniformityCorrelationMultiple comparisonsNull hypothesisSample sizeCovariate balanceAdaptive design

All concepts