Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1801.03989

Average Power and $\lambda$-power in Multiple Testing Scenarios when the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate Procedure is Used

Grant Izmirlian
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We discuss several approaches to defining power in studies designed around the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) false discovery rate (FDR) procedure. We focus primarily on the \textit{average power} and the $\lambda$-\textit{power}, which are the expected true positive fraction and the probability that the true positive fraction exceeds $\lambda$, respectively. We prove results concerning strong consistency and asymptotic normality for the positive call fraction (PCF), the true positive fraction (TPF) and false discovery fraction (FDF). Convergence of their corresponding expected values, including a convergence result for the average power, follow as a corollaries. After reviewing what is known about convergence in distribution of the errors of the plugin procedure, (Genovese, 2004), we prove central limit theorems for fully empirical versions of the PCF, TPF, and FDF, using a result for stopped stochastic processes. The central limit theorem (CLT) for the TPF is used to obtain an approximate expression for the $\lambda$-power, while the CLT for the FDF is used to introduce an approximate procedure for determining a suitably small nominal FDR that results in a speicified bound on the FDF with stipulated high probability. The paper also contains the results of a large simulation study covering a fairly substantial portion of the space of possible inputs encountered in application of the results in the design of a biomarker study, a micro-array experiment and a GWAS study.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Grant Izmirlian. 2018-01-11. Average Power and $\lambda$-power in Multiple Testing Scenarios when the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate Procedure is Used. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03989

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗