BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

William Fithian

William Fithian contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Conditional calibration for false discovery rate control under dependence

We introduce a new class of methods for finite-sample false discovery rate (FDR) control in multiple testing problems with dependent test statistics where the dependence is fully or partially known. Our approach separately calibrates a data-dependent p-value rejection threshold for each hypothesis, relaxing or tightening the threshold as appropriate to target exact FDR control. In addition to our general framework we propose a concrete algorithm, the dependence-adjusted Benjamini-Hochberg (dBH) procedure, which adaptively thresholds the q-value for each hypothesis. Under positive regression dependence the dBH procedure uniformly dominates the standard BH procedure, and in general it uniformly dominates the Benjamini-Yekutieli (BY) procedure (also known as BH with log correction). Simulations and real data examples illustrate power gains over competing approaches to FDR control under dependence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Optimality of the max test for detecting sparse signals with Gaussian or heavier tail

A fundamental problem in high-dimensional testing is that of global null testing: testing whether the null holds simultaneously in all of $n$ hypotheses. The max test, which uses the smallest of the $n$ marginal p-values as its test statistic, enjoys widespread popularity for its simplicity and robustness. However, its theoretical performance relative to other tests has been called into question. In the Gaussian sequence version of the global testing problem, Donoho and Jin (2004) discovered a so-called "weak, sparse" asymptotic regime in which the higher criticism and Berk-Jones tests achieve a better detection boundary than the max test when all of the nonzero signal strengths are identical. We study a more general model in which the non-null means are drawn from a generic distribution, and show that the detection boundary for the max test is optimal in the "weak, sparse" regime, provided that the distribution's tail is no lighter than Gaussian. Further, we show theoretically and in simulation that the modified higher criticism of Donoho and Jin (2004) can have very low power when the distribution of non-null means has a polynomial tail.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

STAR: A general interactive framework for FDR control under structural constraints

We propose a general framework based on selectively traversed accumulation rules (STAR) for interactive multiple testing with generic structural constraints on the rejection set. It combines accumulation tests from ordered multiple testing with data-carving ideas from post-selection inference, allowing for highly flexible adaptation to generic structural information. Our procedure defines an interactive protocol for gradually pruning a candidate rejection set, beginning with the set of all hypotheses and shrinking with each step. By restricting the information at each step via a technique we call masking, our protocol enables interaction while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) in finite samples for any data-adaptive update rule that the analyst may choose. We suggest update rules for a variety of applications with complex structural constraints, show that STAR performs well for problems ranging from convex region detection to FDR control on directed acyclic graphs, and show how to extend it to regression problems where knockoff statistics are available in lieu of $p$-values.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Statistical Methods for Replicability Assessment

Large-scale replication studies like the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P) provide invaluable systematic data on scientific replicability, but most analyses and interpretations of the data fail to agree on the definition of "replicability" and disentangle the inexorable consequences of known selection bias from competing explanations. We discuss three concrete definitions of replicability based on (1) whether published findings about the signs of effects are mostly correct, (2) how effective replication studies are in reproducing whatever true effect size was present in the original experiment, and (3) whether true effect sizes tend to diminish in replication. We apply techniques from multiple testing and post-selection inference to develop new methods that answer these questions while explicitly accounting for selection bias. Our analyses suggest that the RP:P dataset is largely consistent with publication bias due to selection of significant effects. The methods in this paper make no distributional assumptions about the true effect sizes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access